Albert P. Turner v. Helen E. Turner Albert P. Turner v. Helen E. Turner

Albert P. Turner v. Helen E. Turner

NH.63 , 157 A. 532, H. 249 (1931)(85 N)

    • 0,99 €
    • 0,99 €

Publisher Description

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. 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.

GENRE
Professional & Technical
RELEASED
1931
1 December
LANGUAGE
EN
English
PUBLISHER
LawApp Publishers
SIZE
54.1
KB

More Books by Supreme Court of New Hampshire

A. Perley Fitch Company v. Continental A. Perley Fitch Company v. Continental
1954
George W. Roberts v. Tamworth & A. George W. Roberts v. Tamworth & A.
1950
Morris Rosenblum & A. v. John F. Griffin Morris Rosenblum & A. v. John F. Griffin
1938
Roy Rudolph v. Romeo J. Lavigne Roy Rudolph v. Romeo J. Lavigne
1943
State New Hampshire v. Virginia Renfrew State New Hampshire v. Virginia Renfrew
1982
Hydraform Products Corporation v. American Hydraform Products Corporation v. American
1985