Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

8 N.J. Eq. 143

Wright v. Wright

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided December 15, 1849

New Jersey Court of Chancery · decided 1849-12-15

On the 2d of October, 1847, Ruth Wright exhibited her bill, stating, that in and before October, 1828, she was living in the city of New York, and on tho 30th of that month was lawfully married, in said city of New York, to Asa Wright, then residing in the township and county of Bergen, in this State.

Cited in Bouvier (1914)’s definition of “Biline”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1849-12-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently April 1970

1 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

1018491850186018701880189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

The Chancellor.

¶1It is a bill for dower: this is the substantial relief prayed. The bill anticipates that a decree for divorce, obtained by the husband, in his lifetime, will be set up as a defence; and asks dower notwithstanding that decree; alleging that it was fraudulently procured, and setting out the facts on which the allegation of fraud is founded’. The Complainant might have filed her bill for dower saying nothing of the decree for divorce, and left that to come up in defence. But I see no objection to framing a bill as this is framed; and I think the defence should be by plea and answer, and not by demurrer. The grounds of demurrer, therefore, which go to the matter of the bill are not well taken. As to these, the demurrer will be overruled.

¶2The want of prayer for process, and of signature of counsel, are defects which require amendment. As to these the demurrer is allowed.

¶3Order accordingly.

/8/njeq/143 · .json · Public domain