Tim v. Tim
New York Supreme Court
Irene Tim sued in this court Solomon Tim for a divorce a vinculo, on the ground of defendant’s adultery. The answer contained eight defenses, alleging that plaintiff was not defendant’s wife, and that he was never-married to her, and denied any act of adultery on his part. The fourth defense alleged that the plaintiff’s name-was not Irene Tim, but was Irene Ashton.
Read the full summary
Irene Tim sued in this court Solomon Tim for a divorce a vinculo, on the ground of defendant’s adultery. The answer contained eight defenses, alleging that plaintiff was not defendant’s wife, and that he was never-married to her, and denied any act of adultery on his part. The fourth defense alleged that the plaintiff’s name-was not Irene Tim, but was Irene Ashton. The fifth defense was as follows : “That on the 20th day of March, 1869, the plaintiff was and ever since has been a common and notorious prostitute, and has, during all that time, openly and notoriously prostituted herself for…
1Opinion of the CourtLawrence, J.
The fifth paragraph of the answer must be more definite and certain, by stating the times when, and the places at which, the plaintiff committed the alleged adulteries.
The adultery of the plaintiff must be set up in an answer in the same manner, accompanied with the same allegations, as required when the defendant is charged in a complaint with the commission of adultery (Monnell v. Monnell, 3 Barb., 236 ; and see Anonymous, 17 Abb. Pr., 48).
In Hyde v. Hyde, 4 Sandf., 622, an allegation, “that the defendant, in Hovember, 1851, committed the offense in the city of New York, with a female whose…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- AnonymousThe Superior Court of New York City · 1862
- Morrell v. MorrellNew York Supreme Court · 1848
3Cited by1 opinion
- Mitchell v. . MitchellNew York Court of Appeals · 1875