From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Osterweil v. Osterweil

Court of Errors and Appeals
Jan 22, 1943
29 A.2d 868 (N.J. 1943)

Opinion

Submitted October 20th, 1942.

Decided January 22d 1943.

Contempt order in the course of a divorce suit reversed, the case being destitute of legal evidence to support the order.

On appeal from the Court of Chancery.

Mr. Solomon Golat ( Mr. David R. Hochberg, of counsel), for the appellant.

Mr. Nathan Cholodenko, for the respondent.


The appellant husband being in arrears with payments of alimony ordered by the decree nisi, counsel for the wife obtained and served an order to show cause in contempt. The husband's defense was financial inability to comply with the alimony order. On the return of the order to show cause there seems to have been some sort of a colloquy between the advisory master and the husband, which was apparently not taken down, and as to what was said there is no legal evidence. Counsel for the wife submitted to the master his own affidavit stating that he had made inquiries with respect to the husband's earnings and annexed certain letters that he had received from employers, which letters are of course pure hearsay.

The order adjudging contempt was without any factual support derived from legal evidence. It is stated in the brief for the wife that "the proof at the hearing is * * * from the appellant's own lips." But there seems to be no claim that the state of the case is incomplete.

The order under review is reversed.

For affirmance — None.

For reversal — THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, PARKER, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, PERSKIE, PORTER, COLIE, DEAR, WELLS, RAFFERTY, HAGUE, THOMPSON, JJ. 14.


Summaries of

Osterweil v. Osterweil

Court of Errors and Appeals
Jan 22, 1943
29 A.2d 868 (N.J. 1943)
Case details for

Osterweil v. Osterweil

Case Details

Full title:FREIDA OSTERWEIL, petitioner-respondent, v. JACK OSTERWEIL…

Court:Court of Errors and Appeals

Date published: Jan 22, 1943

Citations

29 A.2d 868 (N.J. 1943)
29 A.2d 868