§
In the Matter of B

4 Cited authorities

  1. Hubbard v. Hubbard

    228 N.Y. 81 (N.Y. 1920)   Cited 61 times
    In Hubbard v. Hubbard (228 N.Y. 81, 85.) we held that as the law of this state had provided but one sufficient cause, to wit, adultery, for absolute divorce, the policy of this state "exists to promote the permanency of the marriage contract and the morality of the citizens of the state.

  2. Adams v. Adams

    13 S.E.2d 173 (Ga. 1941)   Cited 14 times

    13557. JANUARY 15, 1941. REHEARING DENIED FEBRUARY 14, 1941. Alimony. Before Judge Cobb. Grady superior court. September 19, 1940. Charles H. Kirbo and Vance Custer, for plaintiff in error. L. H. Foster and S. P. Cain, contra. 1. In a divorce suit in response to a rule nisi to show cause why he should not pay temporary alimony, the insistence by the defendant on a motion presented to the court to quash the service on the ground that no service was had prior to the appearance term, and no order taken

  3. Beckwith v. Bailey

    119 Fla. 316 (Fla. 1935)   Cited 19 times

    Opinion Filed May 14, 1935. A writ of error to the Circuit Court for Dade County, Uly O. Thompson, Judge. Frank Smathers and Bart A. Riley, for Plaintiff in Error; James R. Cooper, for Defendant in Error. DAVIS, J. — This was an action in damages by Bailey against Beckwith for alienation of affections of and for alleged criminal conversation by defendant with the wife of plaintiff. Upon a verdict for defendant, the trial court granted the plaintiff below a new trial, hence this writ of error. The

  4. Reik v. Reik

    163 A. 907 (N.J. 1933)   Cited 6 times

    Decided January 23d 1933. A court of a foreign country acquires no jurisdiction to award a divorce to one who is merely traveling in such foreign country and domiciled in this state. On appeal from the court of chancery. Messrs. Bourgeois Coulomb, for the defendant-appellant. Messrs. Cole Cole, for the petitioner-appellee. PER CURIAM. This is an appeal from an order increasing the wife's maintenance. The original application was before this court in Reik v. Reik, 103 N.J. Eq. 23, affirming the case