Mitchell v. Mitchell

Strum, J.,

dissenting. — The testimony in this case was taken before the Chancellor. Prom that testimony the Chancellor finds as a matter of fact, and expressly recites in the final decree, that “the parties brought about the separation for one year — mutually—and for the purpose of procuring a divorce and that in the alleged desertion and bringing of this suit there is collusion between the parties; that any decree of divorce entered in this cause would simply be a 'divorce by consent,’ contrary to public policy as well as contrary to the purpose and intent of the laws relating to divorce;…