Legal Opinion

Harding v. Harding

The Superior Court of New York City

Decided June 25, 1877Published

The action is brought to dissolve marriage on the ground of adultery of the defendant with one William Zandt. —The answer denies the adultery and alleges con-donation. Upon consent an order of reference was made to hear and determine all the issues. The referee reported in favor of the plaintiff upon all the issues. The defendant duly filed her exceptions to the referee’s report. The plaintiff moved upon the referee’s report and the testimony to confirm such report.

Read the full summary

The action is brought to dissolve marriage on the ground of adultery of the defendant with one William Zandt. —The answer denies the adultery and alleges con-donation. Upon consent an order of reference was made to hear and determine all the issues. The referee reported in favor of the plaintiff upon all the issues. The defendant duly filed her exceptions to the referee’s report. The plaintiff moved upon the referee’s report and the testimony to confirm such report. The defendant moved at the same time upon the exceptions, report and testimony, to vacate such report, and for further relief.…

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court. —Freedman, J.

—In Sullivan v. Sullivan, 41 N. Y. Superior Ct. (9 J. & S.) 519; and Blott v. Rider, 47 How. Pr. 90, the policy of the statute relating to the granting of divorces, the reason for the enactment of the ninety-second rule, and the practice on reference of the issues, have been fully discussed.

The order of reference in the case at bar was in all respects regular. But the court at special term, in the exercise of its supervisory power, saw fit to withhold judgment of divorce notwithstanding the issues had been determined by the referee in favor of the plaintiff. *34The…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Blott v. RiderNew York Supreme Court · 1873

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

Powered by the Exa API