Case Name: THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. HAIM NAJJAR, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1949-05-09
Citations: 2 N.J. 208
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. HAIM NAJJAR, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 208–209

Head Matter:
THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. HAIM NAJJAR, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Argued April 25, 1949
Decided May 9, 1949.
Mr. Walter G. Winne, County Prosecutor of Bergen County, argued the cause for the plaintiff-respondent.
Mr. Joseph Weintraub (Messrs. McGlynn, Weintraub & Stein, attorneys) argued the cause for the defendant-appellant.

Opinion:
Pee Ctjeiam.
The following decisions by this court made since the filing of the opinion below have a bearing upon the. subject matter thereof and should be noted. Where the validity of a foreign divorce decree is collaterally attacked, the issue may be determined despite the fact that at the time of the decree neither party was domiciled in this state. Morrissey v. Morrissey, 1 N. J. 448, 64 A. 2d 209.' "The basis of jurisdiction to dissolve the matrimonial status is domicile. It is almost a matter of common knowledge that the prevalent 'mail order' Mexican divorce is a nullity." Tonti v. Chadwick, 1 N. J. 531, 64 A. 2d 436.
The judgment appealed from is affirmed for the reasons stated by the Appellate Division as thus supplemented.
For affirmance—Chief Justice Yandekilt, and Justices Case, Hehee, Oliphant, Wacheneeld, Bukling and Aokekson—7.
For reversal—None.