Legal Opinion

Warner v. Warner

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided May 15, 1879PublishedCited by 2 opinions

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

  1. Underhill v. Van CortlandtNew York Court of Chancery · 1817
  2. Johnson v. JohnsonCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1835
  3. Odom v. OdomSupreme Court of Georgia · 1867
  4. Johnson v. JohnsonNew York Court of Chancery · 1834
  5. Hofmire v. HofmireNew York Court of Chancery · 1837

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. McGovern v. McGovernNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1932
  2. Sperling v. SperlingNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1952

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

Powered by the Exa API