Legal Opinion
Shonfeld v. Shonfeld
New York Court of Appeals
Decided January 10, 1933PublishedCited by 54 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCrouch, J.
e The action is to annul a marriage for fraud. “ Marriage,” says the statute (Dom. Rel. Law; Cons. Laws, ch. 14, § 10), “ so far as its validity in law is concerned, continues to be a civil contract, to which the consent of parties capable in law of making a contract is essential.” So it was, too, before the statute was enacted. (Ferlat v. Gojon, 1 Hopk. Ch. 478.) The essentials of marriage as a civil contract are, therefore, (a) consent by (b) parties having statutory capacity to give it. Any lack in those essentials makes the marriage void (Dom. Rel. Law, §§ 5 and 6) or voidable (Id. § 7).…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Di Lorenzo v. . Di LorenzoNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
- Kujek v. . GoldmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1896
- Piper v. . HoardNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
- Walter v. . WalterNew York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Fisk v. FiskAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by54 opinions
- Kober v. KoberNew York Court of Appeals · 1965
- Woronzoff-Daschkoff v. Woronzoff-DaschkoffNew York Court of Appeals · 1952
- Anonymous v. AnonymousSuperior Court of Delaware · 1951
- Levy v. LevyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1941
- Coppo v. CoppoNew York Supreme Court · 1937
49 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.