From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Najjar

Supreme Court of New Jersey
May 9, 1949
66 A.2d 37 (N.J. 1949)

Opinion

Argued April 25, 1949 —

Decided May 9, 1949.

Appeal from Appellate Division of the Superior Court.

Mr. Walter G. Winne, County Prosecutor of Bergen County, argued the cause for the plaintiff-respondent.

Mr. Joseph Weintraub ( Messrs. McGlynn, Weintraub Stein, attorneys) argued the cause for the defendant-appellant.


The following decisions by this court made since the filing of the opinion below have a bearing upon the subject matter thereof and should be noted. Where the validity of a foreign divorce decree is collaterally attacked, the issue may be determined despite the fact that at the time of the decree neither party was domiciled in this state. Morrissey v. Morrissey, 1 N.J. 448 , 64 A.2d 209. "The basis of jurisdiction to dissolve the matrimonial status is domicile. * * * It is almost a matter of common knowledge that the prevalent `mail order' Mexican divorce is a nullity." Tonti v. Chadwick, 1 N.J. 531 , 64 A.2d 436.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed for the reasons stated by the Appellate Division as thus supplemented.

For affirmance — Chief Justice VANDERILT, and Justices CASE, HEHER, OLIPHANT, WACHENFELD, BURLING and ACKERSON — 7.

For reversal — None.


Summaries of

State v. Najjar

Supreme Court of New Jersey
May 9, 1949
66 A.2d 37 (N.J. 1949)
Case details for

State v. Najjar

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. HAIM NAJJAR…

Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey

Date published: May 9, 1949

Citations

66 A.2d 37 (N.J. 1949)
66 A.2d 37

Citing Cases

State v. De Meo

Judge Waugh declined to receive the Mexican decree in evidence. See State v. Najjar, 1 N.J. Super. 208 ( App.…

State v. De Meo

The court sustained the State's objection to its admission after defendant's attorney said that he would not…