Legal Opinion

Devanbagh v. Devanbagh

New York Court of Chancery

Decided March 15, 1836PublishedCited by 35 opinions

The object of this suit was to obtain a decree declaring the marriage contract between the parties a nullity, on account of the alleged impotence of the wife. The bill was filed by the husband, in January, 1S35, about fifteen months after the solemnization of the supposed marriage, and was duly verified by the oath of the complainant, as required by the 163d rule of the court.

Read the full summary

The object of this suit was to obtain a decree declaring the marriage contract between the parties a nullity, on account of the alleged impotence of the wife. The bill was filed by the husband, in January, 1S35, about fifteen months after the solemnization of the supposed marriage, and was duly verified by the oath of the complainant, as required by the 163d rule of the court. The complainant alleged, among other things, that the marriage was solemnized in this state, where both of the parties then resided, and where they continued to reside; he believing, from the dress, appearance and…

1Opinion of the Court

The Chancellor,

The revised statutes have authorized a proceeding of this kind, at the suit of the injured party, against the party whose incapacity is alleged. But it is expressly declared that no sentence of nullity shall be pronounced solely on the confessions or declarations of the parties; and the court is in all cases to require other satisfactory evidence of the existence of the facts on which the allegation of nullity is founded. This last provision was absolutely necessary to guard against fraud and collusion in such cases, and is strictly in accordance with the requirements of the…

2Cited by35 opinions

  1. Union Pacific Railway Co. v. BotsfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
  2. Griffin v. . GriffinNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
  3. McQuigan v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R.New York Court of Appeals · 1891
  4. Lane v. Spokane Falls & Northern Railway Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1899
  5. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railroad v. ThulSupreme Court of Kansas · 1883

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

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

Powered by the Exa API