Legal Opinion

Biddle v. Biddle

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided April 5, 1929PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The question for determination at this time is whether in a suit by a wife against her husband to recover money due and payable under the terms of a separation agreement between them, this court may require the husband to pay alimony to his wife to meet her present needs pending final hearing of the cause.

The bill discloses the existence of an agreement between the parties embodying the usual provisions of separation agreements, including an engagement by the husband to make semi-monthly payments of a specified amount to the wife during the joint lives of the parties; the bill also discloses…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Halstead v. HalsteadNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1908
  2. Aspinwall v. AspinwallSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1892
  3. Buttlar v. ButtlarNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1906
  4. Conrad v. BrockerSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1904
  5. Margarum v. MargarumNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1898

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Peters v. PetersCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1933
  2. Cohen v. CohenNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1936
  3. Wigder v. WigderNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1936
  4. Wilson v. WilsonNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1935
  5. duPont v. duPontSuperior Court of Delaware · 1951

2 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