Groff v. Groff
Groff v. Groff
3 N.J.L. 657
Groff v. Groff
Opinion of the Court
It is marked on the back by the justice, “plaintiff’s state of demand;” that is sufficient to designate it.
2d. It was then contended that the action was brought by an infant, and the process sued out in his own name, without a guardian or prochein ami.
[f]
It is the common practice; it is sufficient if the guardian or prochein ami is appointed before declaration; and this has been regularly done in both cases.
Let judgment be affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.