Legal Opinion

Dooley v. Dooley

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided September 22, 1921PublishedCited by 9 opinions

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

  1. Turney v. AveryNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1921
  2. Fodor v. KunieNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1920
  3. State v. SabaSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1922

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Jimenez v. JimenezNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1922
  2. Raia v. RaiaSupreme Court of Alabama · 1926
  3. Caruso v. CarusoNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1929
  4. Houlahan v. HorzepaNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1957
  5. Woodward v. HeichelbechNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1925

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

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

Powered by the Exa API