Legal Opinion

Oatman v. Oatman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided December 30, 1943PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Judgment reversed on the law and facts, without costs of this appeal to either party, and complaint dismissed, without costs. Certain findings of fact disapproved and reversed. Memorandum: The separation agreement, pleaded as a defense, bars the maintenance of this action. (Winter v. Winter, 191 N. Y. 462, 473-475; Matter of Rhinelander, 290 N. Y. 31, 37; Benesch v. Benesch, 182 App. Div. 221; Drane v. Drane, 207 App. Div. 217; Almonte v. Almonte, 259 App. Div. 311; Matter of Tierney, 148 Misc. 378, 383.) All concur. (The judgment is for plaintiff in an action for separation.) Present'—…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Winter v. . WinterNew York Court of Appeals · 1908
  2. In Re the Accounting of RhinelanderNew York Court of Appeals · 1943
  3. Drane v. DraneAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1923
  4. Benesch v. BeneschAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1918
  5. In re the Estate of TierneyNew York Surrogate's Court · 1933

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Adamik v. AdamikNew York Supreme Court · 1948
  2. Durso v. DursoNew York Supreme Court · 1953
  3. Haas v. HaasNew York Court of Appeals · 1948
  4. McAvoy v. McAvoyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1947

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API