From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Riker v. Riker

Court of Errors and Appeals
Feb 1, 1932
158 A. 470 (N.J. 1932)

Opinion

Submitted October 30th, 1931.

Decided February 1st, 1932.

1. Defendant left his wife and made a home for his mother when the wife insisted upon the mother finding a home elsewhere. Held, that such action can hardly justify a husband separating from his wife.

2. To render constructive desertion by the wife available as a defense to the wife's suit for maintenance, it must appear that such desertion was obstinately continued.

On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery.

Mr. G. Earl Brugler, for the appellant.

Mr. Frank E. Bradner, for the respondent.


The ground of the decision by the vice-chancellor, that the husband was justified in separating from his wife and making a home for his mother, when the wife insisted upon the husband's mother, with whom her relations were not pleasant, finding a home elsewhere than in the home of the parties, seems to us to be unnecessary to a proper decision of this case. However commendable such display of filial duty may be, it is going far to say that such devotion may be permitted to conflict with the conjugal duty a husband owes to his wife. Further, it seems to us, if the wife's conduct, in the circumstances of this case, justified the husband in leaving his wife and cleaving to his mother and amounted to constructive desertion of the husband by the wife, to render it available as a defense it must appear that such desertion was obstinately continued. Fraser v. Fraser, 87 N.J. Eq. 633. This question was not dealt with by the court below.

We think the decree in this case should be affirmed, for the reason that it appears that the defendant therein had been contributing to the support of his wife from the time of separation down to and including the date of the decree, and it does not appear that the sum provided by him was not reasonable, having regard to the circumstances of the parties.

The decree will be affirmed.

For affirmance — THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, TRENCHARD, PARKER, CAMPBELL, LLOYD, CASE, BODINE, DALY, DONGES, VAN BUSKIRK, KAYS, HETFIELD, DEAR, WELLS, KERNEY, JJ. 15.

For reversal — None.


Summaries of

Riker v. Riker

Court of Errors and Appeals
Feb 1, 1932
158 A. 470 (N.J. 1932)
Case details for

Riker v. Riker

Case Details

Full title:SALLIE B. RIKER, complainant-appellant, v. FREDERICK H. RIKER…

Court:Court of Errors and Appeals

Date published: Feb 1, 1932

Citations

158 A. 470 (N.J. 1932)
158 A. 470

Citing Cases

Wiener v. Wiener

defendant did not stand "in loco parentis" to complainant's children; that he was not obliged to support…

Koch v. Koch

See Busboom v. Busboom, 187 A.2d 122, 123 ( D.C. Mun. Ct. App. 1962). An earlier case, Riker v. Riker, 110…