Anonymous
New York Supreme Court
The plaintiff in this action married his first wife in England in 1839; soon separated from her and married a second wife in this country in 1843 ; obtained a divorce from the second wife in 1864, in an action which she did not defend ; and in 1865 married a third wife, both the first and second being living.
Read the full summary
The plaintiff in this action married his first wife in England in 1839; soon separated from her and married a second wife in this country in 1843 ; obtained a divorce from the second wife in 1864, in an action which she did not defend ; and in 1865 married a third wife, both the first and second being living. The questions now before the court arose out of the application of the second wife, on which the judgment of divorce was opened, thus reinstating her again, and the consequent application of the third wife to be allowed to intervene and litigate for her own protection in defense of the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.—Daniels, J.
Although the plaintiff’s third wife was allowed to make herself a party to the present action, after the judgment in it was vacated and the second wife allowed to defend and to plead her rights as against either of the parties, and afterwards did so by her answer, that did not enlarge or extend the nature of plaintiff’s action for relief, as it was-presented by the complaint made by him. The action still continued to be the same, simply an action to secure a decree of nullity of the plaintiff’s second marriage. It was framed before the third marriage took place, and…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Rome Bank v. EamesNew York Court of Appeals · 1864
- McClure v. Supervisors of NiagaraNew York Court of Appeals · 1867