Legal Opinion

Nottingham v. Nottingham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided May 23, 1924No. 2Published

1Opinion of the Court

Davis, J.:

The action is for an absolute divorce. The referee found in defendant’s favor on the issues. The court at Special Term denied *463her motion to confirm and granted á new trial. No allowance for counsel fees or expenses in defending had been made. The plaintiff on a previous motion for such relief had pleaded his inability to pay. That motion was denied with leave to renew. This motion was for leave to examine plaintiff and others as to his ability to pay, and for an allowance.

As the action stood at that time, we think the order should have been granted. Defendant had taken an appeal to…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Beadleston v. . BeadlestonNew York Court of Appeals · 1886
  2. McBride v. . McBrideNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
  3. Harding v. . HardingNew York Court of Appeals · 1923
  4. Harding v. HardingAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922
  5. Nottingham v. NottinghamAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1924

3 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