Case Name: Barbara A. Flynn, appellant, v. Joseph A. Flynn, Jr., respondent
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1914-11-16
Citations: 83 N.J. Eq. 690
Docket Number: 
Parties: Barbara A. Flynn, appellant, v. Joseph A. Flynn, Jr., respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Equity Reports
Volume: 83
Pages: 690–691

Head Matter:
Barbara A. Flynn, appellant, v. Joseph A. Flynn, Jr., respondent.
[Submitted July 6th, 1914.
Decided November 16th, 1914.]
In a suit for divorce on the ground of desertion — Held, that the petitioner was not a dona fide resident of this state “at the time the cause of action arose,” within the meaning of the jurisdiction clauses of the Divorce act of 1907 (Comp. Stab. p. 3031). Gets: v. Getz, 81 N. J. Eq. 465, followed.
On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Advisory Master Clarence S. Biddle, who filed the following conclusions:
The desertion commenced in the State oE New York in August, 1904. After this the petitioner lived with her mother in that state until the latter’s death in August, 1908, when she removed to the State of New Jersey.
The jurisdictional fact stated by the master that the petitioner was a bona fids resident of this state when the cause of action arose cannot be sustained. Koch v. Koch, 79 N. J. Eq. 24.
The petition should be dismissed.
Further depositions having been taken on order therefor, the following memorandum was filed:
The additional testimony is to the effect that shortly before the petitioner became a resident of this state the defendant said that if the petitioner would leave her folks and live elsewhere than in the city of Brooklyn, or would live “out of the state,” ho would support her. I do not understand that the husband and wife agreed to live separate until the wTife got ready to live out of the State of Mew York; and there is no indication that the wife gave assent to the husband’s previous desertion, and after taking up lier residence in this state, notified him of that fact and called upon him to fulfill his part of the agreement. The most favorable light in which the situation can be viewed from the wife's standpoint (and T think the true one) is, that the husband did not arrest the period of desertion by such display of mental attitude.
It is clear to me that the solicitor is dissatisfied with Koch v. Koch, 79 N. J. Eq. 24. Since the former memorandum in this case, the court has decided Getz v. Getz, 81 N. J. Eq. 465. It does not appear to me to bo becoming to further agitate the point in this court; but the petitioner if aggrieved must resort to her appeal.
The clerk is directed to dismiss this petition at once.
Messrs. Teeple & Unger, for the appellant.

Opinion:
Pee Curiam.
The decree appealed from will Ire affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Advisory Master Biddle. »
For affirmance — The Ci-tief-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trenci-iaed, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisck, Black, Bogert, Vbedenbuegi-i, ' Terhune, Heppenheimer, Williams — 14.
For reversal — None.