Reeves v. Weber
Supreme Court of New Jersey
1Per curiam
The decree under review should be affirmed.
Counsel for appellant argues in his brief that it is the settled rule of law in New Jersey, that laches will not be imputed to a husband merely from his failure to prosecute a suit against his wife during the continuance of the marital relation, and cites Bennett v. Finnegan, 72 N. J. Eq. 155; Alpaugh v. Wilson, 52 N. J. Eq. 424; affirmed, 52 N. J. Eq. 589; Yeomans v. Petty, 40 N. J. Eq. 495; Collins v. Babbitt, 67 N. J. Eq. 165, and other New Jersey decisions as well as decisions of the courts of other jurisdictions.
Counsel for appellant, quoting…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Poka v. HoliHawaii Supreme Court · 1960
- Lohmann v. LohmannNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1958
- TURRO EX REL. TURRO v. TurroNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1956
- Kelly v. KellyNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1944
- Meyer v. MeyerNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1938
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.