Warner v. Warner
New Jersey Court of Chancery
On final hearing on bill, answer and proofs.
1Opinion of the Court
The Yice-Chanoellor.
This is a suit for divorce, founded on charges of adultery. The evidence in support of the charges leaves no doubt of their truth. Their truth is established so conclusively that I deem a reference to even the most material facts wholly unnecessary. But the proof of their condonation is almost equally strong. Eo such defence, however, is made by the ■answer. Can the defendant avail himself of it?
To enable a defendant to avail himself of condonation as a defence, he must set it up either by plea or answer. Jones v. Jones, 3 C. E. Gr. 34; Smith v. Smith, 4. Paige 432. *226Actions…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Underhill v. Van CortlandtNew York Court of Chancery · 1817
- Johnson v. JohnsonCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1835
- Odom v. OdomSupreme Court of Georgia · 1867
- Johnson v. JohnsonNew York Court of Chancery · 1834
- Hofmire v. HofmireNew York Court of Chancery · 1837
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- McGovern v. McGovernNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1932
- Sperling v. SperlingNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1952