Legal Opinion

Bamberger v. Bamberger

New York Supreme Court

Decided September 25, 1926PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtNoonan, J.

This is an action to annul a marriage on the sole ground that the defendant had a husband living at the time of said marriage. It is equitable in character (38 C. J. 1351, 1357) and “ the court has the right to withhold such relief unless the party asking it comes into court with clean hands.” (Pettit v. Pettit, 105 App. Div. 312, 313; Taylor v. Taylor, 63 id. 231; Berry v. Berry, 130 id. 53.)

7 he only disputed question of fact herein is whether or not the *2plaintiff knew of the previous marriage of the defendant. Upon the evidence I am fully satisfied that he did know about it, and also that…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Stokes v. . StokesNew York Court of Appeals · 1910
  2. Rose v. ClarkNew York Court of Chancery · 1841
  3. McCullen v. McCullenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1914
  4. Matter of Ziegler v. . Cassidy's SonsNew York Court of Appeals · 1917
  5. Pettit v. PettitAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1905

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Gehm v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1949
  2. Presbrey v. PresbreyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1958
  3. Ventura v. VenturaNew York Supreme Court · 1967
  4. Adams v. AdamsNew York Supreme Court · 1946
  5. Karameros v. LutherNew York Supreme Court · 1938

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

Powered by the Exa API