TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Bibby v. Bibby

James S. Bibby v. Sarah Bibby

Bibby v. Bibby, 33 N.J. Eq. 56 (1880)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New Jersey Court of Chancery · State Appellate Courts
Decided
October 15, 1880
Citations
33 N.J. Eq. 56
Headnotes
In a suit by a husband for divorce on the ground of his wife’s adultery, the fact that the alleged paramour of the wife was within reach of process at the time of examining the witnesses, and was not called to testify on behalf of the wife’s innocence, is significant, and corroborative of the other witnesses’ testimony as to her guilt.
Summary
Petition for divorce. On final hearing on pleadings and proofs The chancellor, after reviewing the testimony, concluded that the adultery of the wife had been sufficiently proved to decree a divorce in the husband’s favor. He then said:

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

THE CHANCELLOR.

While the defendant was not a competent witness in her own behalf to disprove the imputed adultery, Young, her alleged paramour, was, and he appears to have been in Paterson during the examination of witnesses in this cause. He might have been called, but was not. The defendant has chosen rather to come to the hearing without his testimony. The fact that she did not call him is an important circumstance in corroboration of the testimony of the Mellors, and of much significance in reaching a conclusion as to her guilt.

There will be a decree of divorce.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1960: 119602026peak 1960 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Coven v. Coven165 A.2d 200 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1960)

Most recent

  1. Coven v. Coven165 A.2d 200 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1960)

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list