de Marigny v. de Marigny

Plaintiff has moved, by cross notice to defendant’s motion on the pleadings decided herewith (193 Misc. 189), to strike out defendant’s defenses as insufficient in law, or in the alternative to strike their allegations from the answer as sham.

The defenses allege (1) that neither of the parties was or is domiciled in the State and that the court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the action; (2) that the court has no jurisdiction of the person of the defendant; (3) that public policy requires, because of the lack of domicile of the parties, the court to decline jurisdiction of the action;…