Dooley v. Dooley
New Jersey Court of Chancery
On final hearing in divorce on master’s report and depositions ex parte.
1Opinion of the Court
Walker, Chancellor.
Before proceeding to a consideration of the merits, of this ease, I desire to say that it is not correctly entitled. A suit for nullity of marriage when brought for cause existing at ox before the time the marriage is solemnized, when instituted by a woman, should be in her maiden name, followed by the words falsely called * * * or by the word otherwise * * * (adding the husband’s surname.) See G— v. G— , 67 N. J. Eq. 30 (at p. 33). See, also, illustrations at pp. 85, 86. When such a suit is instituted by a man the woman should be called by her maiden name, followed by the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Turney v. AveryNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1921
- Fodor v. KunieNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1920
- State v. SabaSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1922
3Cited by9 opinions
- Jimenez v. JimenezNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1922
- Raia v. RaiaSupreme Court of Alabama · 1926
- Caruso v. CarusoNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1929
- Houlahan v. HorzepaNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1957
- Woodward v. HeichelbechNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1925
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.