Legal Opinion

Cote v. Cote

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided July 2, 1947No. 3651PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJohnston, J.

The present proceeding is not one to recover money due and needed for the support of the children. It is for the equitable purpose of reimbursing a mother, the plaintiff, for expenditures of hers caused by the default of the father, the defendant, under a court order with respect to payments for the support of their children.

Among the findings of the Trial Judge is the following: “It is found, however, that both parties entered into the remarriage with the understanding that ‘bygones would be bygones,’ and that past obligations of either were forgiven to the extent they legally could be.”…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Barrett v. CadySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1915
  2. Hould v. Maryland Casualty Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1929
  3. Record v. Rochester Trust Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1937
  4. Wentworth v. WentworthSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1910
  5. Chamberlain v. LyndeboroughSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1888

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Stephen S. Pstragowski v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Orise B. Pstragowski v. Metropolitan Life Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1977
  2. State Employees' Ass'n of New Hampshire, Inc. v. Belknap CountySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1982
  3. Jenot v. White Mountain Acceptance Corp.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1984
  4. Paras v. City of PortsmouthSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1975
  5. Kissinger v. KissingerCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 1984

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API