Turner v. Turner
Albert P. Turner v. Helen E. Turner.
Opinion of the Court
Allen, J.
Jurisdiction is wanting. In adoption of common-law principles courts of equity require the residence, if not the domicile, of at least one of the parties for the maintenance of an annulment suit.
Avakian v. Avakian, 69 N. J. Eq. 89;
Rinaldi v. Rinaldi, 94 N. J. Eq.
*250 14;
Barney v. Cuness, 68 Vt. 51 ;
Antoine v. Antoine, 132 Miss. 442 . No statute has been here enacted to make the requirement unnecessary. If the legislation limiting jurisdiction in divorce libels (P.
L., c.
287, ss.
3-5) is applicable to annulment suits, it limits rather than enlarges the scope of the equity rule.
The marriage was local, but that fact is of no avail. It is not where a transaction takes place that gives jurisdiction to determine its civil character, but where the parties to it are, or in some cases where their property is, makes the decisive test.
Petition dismissed.
All concurred.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.