¶1A suit for limited divorce; the case was proved; and the solicitor for the complainant brought the draft of the proposed decree for the approval of the vice-chancellor: when His Honor required it should be made conformable to the decretal order which appears in the printed report of Barrere v. Barrere, 4. J. C. R. 187. and suggested its being a desirable form to be used in all similar cases.
2 Edw. Ch. 192
Pool v. Pool
Decided March 15, 1834
New York Court of Chancery · decided 1834-03-15
<p>to cuita for separation, where the complainant provea hii or her case, the form of the decretal order settled by chancellor Kent is to be used.</p>
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently April 1865
2 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1834-03-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →