Williamson v. Williamson
New York Court of Chancery
THIS was a bill for a divorce.* The plaintiff stated, that, , . . , m 1780, he was married to the defendant, m the city of New-York, where they both resided. That at the time of adultery charged, the plaintiff was, and still is, an inhabitant of, and resident within this state.
Read the full summary
THIS was a bill for a divorce.* The plaintiff stated, that, , . . , m 1780, he was married to the defendant, m the city of New-York, where they both resided. That at the time of adultery charged, the plaintiff was, and still is, an inhabitant of, and resident within this state. That during the absence of the plaintiff, on a sea voyage, the defendant, on the 20th of April, 1814, committed adultery with Philip Parisién, and had abandoned the plaintiff, and since lived with the said Parisién, &c. The answer of the defendant admitted the marriage with the plaintiff; and that, while the plaintiff…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The plaintiff comes not as a novus hospes into this court. It is but a few weeks since I dismissed the bill between these very parties,* and a new suit for a. divorce has since been instituted, by consent, and brought to a hearing, according to its regular order, on the calendar; and from some negotiation, or accommodation, which does not appear, and to which I mean not to be a party, by giving it any facility, a decree of divorce, though strongly resisted in the former cause, appears now to be a matter of consent and solicitude on both sides. The facts have, accordingly, been…
2Cited by19 opinions
- McArthur v. Carrie's Adm'rSupreme Court of Alabama · 1858
- Dutcher v. DutcherWisconsin Supreme Court · 1876
- Ackerman v. . AckermanNew York Court of Appeals · 1910
- Reed v. ReedMichigan Supreme Court · 1883
- Le Barron v. Le BarronSupreme Court of Vermont · 1862
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.