Legal Opinion

Shaw v. Shaw

Court of Chancery of Delaware

Decided June 5, 1939PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The Chancellor :

The defendant and the complainant are husband and wife, and it must be conceded that this court ordinarily has jurisdiction over contracts made by persons standing in that relation. Coxe v. Coxe, 20 Del. Ch. 384, 178 A. 104.

The payments to be made by the defendant, provided for in the contract, are solely for the education, maintenance and support of the infant children of the parties thereto, and no provision, whatever, is made for the benefit of the complainant, the wife of the defendant. While she is a party to the contract, so far as those provisions are concerned she is…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Duryea v. . BlivenNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
  2. Muth v. WuestAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1902
  3. Sabbarese v. SabbareseNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1929
  4. Heinsohn v. ChandlerCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1938
  5. Thomas v. ThomasSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1929

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Zouck v. ZouckCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1990
  2. Campbell v. CampbellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
  3. K. H. v. W. H.Delaware Family Court · 1979
  4. Millard v. TaylorCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1968
  5. Sears v. SearsDelaware Family Court · 1983

4 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