Legal Opinion

Saperstone v. Saperstone

New York Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1911PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Actiox to annul a marriage on the ground that when it was solemnized defendant had a living husband.

1Opinion of the CourtOlaek, J.

The parties to this action were married in Buffalo, October 8, 1909. It is the contention of plaintiff that prior to the marriage defendant told him that she was *632a widow. Some time after, the marriage plaintiff discovered that his wife was not a widow, hut that her first husband was still living in Russia, where defendant had formerly resided.

Defendant denied on the trial that she had represented herself to be a widow, but alleged that prior to her marriage to plaintiff she told him she had a divorce from her first husband, which last statement plaintiff disputed.

On the trial defendant…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. In Re Revocation of Ancillary Letters Testamentary of the Estate of NewcombNew York Court of Appeals · 1908
  2. Hunt v. . HuntNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
  3. In re Florance's WillNew York Supreme Court · 1889
  4. Leshinsky v. LeshinskyThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo · 1893

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Younger v. GianottiTennessee Supreme Court · 1940
  2. Shikoh v. MurffCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1958
  3. In re the Estate of CrosbyNew York Surrogate's Court · 1914
  4. Burkhart v. BurkhartSuperior Court of Delaware · 1937
  5. Shikoh v. MurffCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1958

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

Powered by the Exa API