TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Sargent v. Sargent

Donald J. Sargent v. Frances L. Sargent

Sargent v. Sargent, 114 A. 439 (N.J. 1921)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of New Jersey · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 20, 1921
Judges
Affirmance, Bergen, Black, Chiee, Gardner, Ibimer, Ieppeni, Kalisci, Katzenbaci, Minturn, Parker, Reversal, Swayze, White, Williams
Citations
114 A. 43992 N.J. Eq. 7037 Stock. 7031921 N.J. LEXIS 258
Summary
On. appeal from a decree of the court of chancery.

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.

Per Curiam.

Donald J. Sargent, the present appellant, filed his petition in the court of chancery charging his wife with having committed adultery on several occasions in September, 1918, and on later dates, up to July, 1919; with one Charles Simmons, a chauffeur in his employ. He also charged his wife with acts of infidelity committed with another man, whose identity is concealed under the pseudonym of “Mr. X.” At the hearing the appellant abandoned the charge of meretricious relations existing between his wife and the latter person, and confined himself to an attempt to prove illicit intercourse with, the man Simmons. The advisory master before whom the case was heard, after a consideration of the very voluminous testimonj'' submitted, reached *704 the conclusión that the appellant had failed to prove the charges against his wife by evidence sufficiently convincing to justify the granting of a decree in his favor. Our examination of the proofs sent up with the appeal satisfies us that he was justified in this view. The wife was surrounded by servants in the employ of the husband, some of whom at least were active in his behalf for the purpose of discovering actions on her part suggestive of illicit relations existing between her and Simmons. So-called detectives were employed for the same purpose by him, and some of them also were installed in the home in which both of the parties lived. Notwithstanding this constant spying on her-, no direct evidence of adultery was discovered and only two occasions were testified to in which the facts are claimed to indicate infidelity on her part. But, in our opinion, the most that can be said with relation to her conduct on these two occasions-, looked at in the aspect most unfavorable to her, is that it was injudicious and indiscreet. It was not inconsistent with the probability of innocence on her part.

The decree under review will he affirmed.

Gardner, J.

I vote to affirm the decree below on the ground that the specific charges of adultery were not proven.

For affirmance-—The Chiee-Justice, Swayze, Bergen, Minturn, Black, Katzenbaci-i, White, I-Ieppeni-ibimer, Gardner—9. For reversal—Parker, Kalisci-i, Williams'—3.

How later courts describe this case

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

1931: 11952: 119312026peak 1931 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Judkins v. Judkins92 A.2d 120 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1952)
  2. McElnea v. McElnea153 A. 644 (N.J. Ct. of Ch. 1931)

Most recent

  1. Judkins v. Judkins92 A.2d 120 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1952)
  2. McElnea v. McElnea153 A. 644 (N.J. Ct. of Ch. 1931)

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