Opinion
Argued September 25, 1967 —
Decided October 9, 1967.
Appeal from Superior Court, Appellate Division.
On appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court, Appellate Division, where the following per curiam opinion was filed:
"This is an appeal by defendant Gussie Joffe from orders entered in the Superior Court, Chancery Division, on October 20 and November 12, 1964 adjudging her in contempt for (1) violation of an order entered September 21, 1962 restraining her from proceeding in a separation suit instituted by her in the Supreme Court of New York; (2) violation of similar orders entered subsequent thereto, and (3) violation of an order entered December 19, 1962 granting plaintiff the right of visitation with the infant child of the marriage.
Defendant contends that the orders adjudging her in contempt are void because the Chancery Division is bound by an order of the Supreme Court of New York holding that plaintiff Sidney H. Joffe submitted to its jurisdiction in personam. She further contends that the Chancery Division has no jurisdiction over the custody of the infant child of the marriage.
There is no question concerning the jurisdiction of our courts over the person of defendant. She was personally served in New Jersey with the summons and complaint in the action filed by plaintiff on August 17, 1962 seeking, inter alia, custody of or visitation rights with the infant child of the marriage. The record clearly indicates that the domicile of plaintiff was at all times in New Jersey — that the marital res and matrimonial domicile is here. Furthermore, the child's domicile is also in New Jersey.
There is nothing in the record to establish that at the time the Chancery Division action was commenced the New York court had personal jurisdiction over the plaintiff or the marital res. It is further apparent that all New York judgments were obtained by defendant in violation of the Chancery Division restraining orders.
By proceeding in the New York court after having been served with the restraining orders of our court, defendant was guilty of contempt. The judgment of the Chancery Division adjudging defendant in contempt of court is affirmed."
Mr. Thomas W. Dunn argued the cause for appellant ( Mr. Walter H. Jones, attorney.)
Mr. J. Mortimer Rubenstein argued the cause for respondent.
The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Appellate Division, supra. For affirmance — Chief Justice WEINTRAUB and JUSTICES JACOBS, FRANCIS, PROCTOR, SCHETTINO and HANEMAN — 6.
For reversal — None.