Ziesel v. Ziesel
Supreme Court of New Jersey
On appeal from an order of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Learning, who delivered orally the following opinion: “1 am a little in doubt. It seems to me that an allowance of $1,500 a year, under all the circumstances, would not be very far from right. That ought to be sufficient to provide for the board of the boy and a fairly liberal expenditure for his education.
Read the full summary
On appeal from an order of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Learning, who delivered orally the following opinion: “1 am a little in doubt. It seems to me that an allowance of $1,500 a year, under all the circumstances, would not be very far from right. That ought to be sufficient to provide for the board of the boy and a fairly liberal expenditure for his education. If $10 a week were allowed for the support of the boy it would be $520, and then if $800 were allowed for the education in addition it would be a total of $1,320, which would be only a little less than $1,500.…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Teenci-iakd, J.
This, as will be seen, is an appeal from an •order of the court of chancery requiring the appellant to pay for the support, maintenance and education of his minor son, Edward Ziesel.
The facts and circumstances giving rise to the order under review are these:
The parties to the action, Dr. and Mrs. Ziesel, were married January 27th, 1889. Three children were born, of whom Edward, the one concerned here, is the youngest. They were divorced in Pennsylvania December 21st, 1914. No provision was made in that decree for the support and…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Hardisty v. HardistySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1981
- Com. Ex Rel. Binney v. BinneySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
- Jackman v. ShortOregon Supreme Court · 1940
- " Johnston " v. " Johnston "New York Family Court · 1941
- Cohen v. CohenNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1949
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.