Legal Opinion

Blumenthal v. Tannenholz

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided May 15, 1879PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Bill for.decree annulling marriage. On final hearing on pleadings and proofs.

1Opinion of the Court

The Chancellor.

This is a suit for a decree annulling a marriage for fraud. The parties are Jews. The complainant alleges that she was induced to enter into a contract of marriage here, without knowing it. to be such, with the defendant, by the false and fraudulent representations of the latter to her, that the ceremony was a mere betrothal, such as is common among the Jews. Neither of the parties then resided in this state. The defendant does not now reside here. He has not been *196served with process. The complainant was, when the suit was brought, and still is, a minor. Her parents reside in…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Wood v. WoodNew York Court of Chancery · 1830
  2. Garnett v. GarnettMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
  3. Worthy v. WorthySupreme Court of Georgia · 1867
  4. Johnson v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1877
  5. McCarville v. BoyleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1895

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Brown v. BrownNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1933
  2. Pennello v. PennelloNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1925
  3. Shim v. Rutgers-The State UniversitySupreme Court of New Jersey · 2007
  4. Shim v. Rutgers-The State UniversitySupreme Court of New Jersey · 2007

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

Powered by the Exa API