Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

CAROLINE G. ONKEN, petitioner-respondent, v. THEODORE ONKEN,defendant-appellant.

1. Petitioner filed her petition for divorce and there was substituted service on the defendant, then a resident of New York. He consulted an attorney and engaged him to represent him in the matter of alimony. Thereafter, defendant's attorney signed a stipulation extending defendant's time to appear and answer, and containing a clause stating that the appearance of defendant's solicitor was a special one for the purpose of making the stipulation only. Held, defendant entered a general appearance through his attorney when the latter procured an extension of time to answer, and defendant was therefore in court to such extent that a valid and binding decree for alimony could be entered against him. The fact that a special appearance was attempted to be made cannot alter the situation.

2. Defendant's attorney entered into a stipulation settling the amount of permanent alimony to be paid his wife, the stipulation stating that defendant's solicitor expressly waived notice of hearing as required by the chancery rules. The stipulation was acquiesced in for many years and never repudiated until this proceeding. Held, this stipulation amounted to an appearance by a solicitor authorized to represent the defendant on the record.

3. The burden of showing want of authority by the solicitor to enter an appearance is on the party asserting it, in this case the defendant. Defendant paid for the solicitor's services. Payment of an attorney for his services amounts to a ratification of his acts, even though the attorney's appearance was originally without authority.

4. Defendant is guilty of laches, having waited more than twelve years since the entry of the decree complained of.

5. Held, defendant is guilty of contempt of court for failure to obey its alimony order, unless he can show that he is unable to pay the arrears of alimony.

PER CURIAM.

The order appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion delivered by Advisory Master Child in the court of chancery. For affirmance — PARKER, LLOYD, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, PERSKIE, HETFIELD, DEAR, WELLS, WOLFSKEIL, RAFFERTY, WALKER, JJ. 13.

For reversal — None.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

ONKEN v. ONKEN
(Jan 26, 1938)