Case Name: Hazel Howe Rushmore, complainant-respondent, v. Samuel Willis Rushmore, defendant-appellant; Samuel Willis Rushmore, petitioner-appellant, v. Hazel Howe Rushmore, defendant-respondent
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1935-01-10
Citations: 117 N.J. Eq. 451
Docket Number: 
Parties: Hazel Howe Rushmore, complainant-respondent, v. Samuel Willis Rushmore, defendant-appellant. Samuel Willis Rushmore, petitioner-appellant, v. Hazel Howe Rushmore, defendant-respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Equity Reports
Volume: 117
Pages: 451–452

Head Matter:
Hazel Howe Rushmore, complainant-respondent, v. Samuel Willis Rushmore, defendant-appellant. Samuel Willis Rushmore, petitioner-appellant, v. Hazel Howe Rushmore, defendant-respondent.
[Submitted October term, 1934.
Decided January 10th, 1935.]
Mr. Francis A. Gordon and Mr. John. M. Mackenzie, for the appellant.
Mr. Merritt Lane, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Pee Cueiam.
We concur in the conclusion of the advisory master that the evidence establishes an abandonment of respondent by appellant under circumstances entitling her to separate maintenance. The allegation, made by appellant, that respondent has been guilty of a willful, continued and obstinate desertion, is not sustained by the proofs.
The decree is affirmed.
For affirmance — The Chiee-Justice, Paekee, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Donges, Hehee, Peeskie, Van Buskiek, Kays, Deae, Wells, JJ. 13.
For reversal — None.