Case ID: nj-eq_95/html/0275-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam. Parker, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Albert H. Atha, appellant, v. Mart H. Atha et al., respondents.
    [Decided October 19th, 1923.]
    On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by 'Vice-Chancellor Church, whose opinion is reported in 1 N. J. Adv. B. 901, and 94 N. J. Eq. 692.
    
    
      Messrs. McCarter .& English, for the appellant.
    
      Mr. Nicholas W. Bindsell and Mr. Merritt Lane, for the respondents.
   Per Curiam.

So much of the decree as has been appealed frorii will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice-Chancellor Church.

Parker, J.

(dissenting).

I concur in the finding of fact by the learned vice-chancellor that the defendant below had been guilty of adultery, but am unable to concur in the further finding that the petitioner consented to or connived at such adultery, of which he seems to have had no knowledge or suspicion until after the filing of his original petition. This seems to bring the case within the ruling in Woodward v. Woodward, 41 N. J. Eq. 224, and on the authority of that case I voted for a reversal.

Judge Aekerson authorizes me to say that he concurs in the foregoing views.

For affirmance—The Chiee-Justice, Trenchard, Min-turn, Kalisci-i, Black, Katzenbaci-i, Heppeni-ieimer, Van Buskirk—8.

For reversal—Parker, Ackerson—2.