Legal Opinion

Caruso v. Caruso

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided June 13, 1929PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

A petition was filed in the above stated cause for the annulment of a marriage. The cause is improperly entitled. If petitioner thinks it was no marriage and that she is entitled to have it annulled, it should be entitled "Belle Riedinger, otherwise Belle Caruso, Petitioner, v. Thomas Caruso, Defendant." However, this defect is of form and not of substance, and the parties being sufficiently identified there can be no doubt of the validity of the proceedings and decree. Dooley v.Dooley, 93 N.J. Eq. 22.

The petitioner alleges that on May 1st, 1926, a form or ceremony of marriage took place…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Ysern v. HorterNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1920
  2. Dooley v. DooleyNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1921
  3. Berus v. BerusNew York Supreme Court · 1914

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Dacunzo v. EdgyeSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1955
  2. Pretlow v. PretlowSupreme Court of Virginia · 1941
  3. Dacunzo v. EdgyeNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1955
  4. In re the Estate of BruingtonNew York Surrogate's Court · 1936
  5. Bilowit v. DolitskyNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1973

2 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