Kock v. Kock
New York Supreme Court
rpHE defendant made a motion for alimony during the pen--L dency of an action of divorce against her by her husband and for counsel fees to conduct her defense, stating that she had employed Messrs. William C. Traphagan and James T. Brady as her counsel, and that the plaintiff was a man of wealth and leisure, living at the rate of $5000 per annum.
Read the full summary
rpHE defendant made a motion for alimony during the pen--L dency of an action of divorce against her by her husband and for counsel fees to conduct her defense, stating that she had employed Messrs. William C. Traphagan and James T. Brady as her counsel, and that the plaintiff was a man of wealth and leisure, living at the rate of $5000 per annum. The plaintiff, in opposition to the motion, read affidavits by which it appeared that he first became acquainted with the defendant on the 11th March, 1863, without the usual introduction, and was married to her on the 8th of April, 1863. The…
1Opinion of the CourtClebkb, J.
said: Formerly it was usual to grant alimony and counsel tees in all actions for divorce brought by the husband against his wife, but of late the rule had been relaxed, and that it would be an outrage to grant an allowance in such a case as this.
Motion denied.
Clerke, Justice.]
2Cited by8 opinions
- Brindley v. BrindleySupreme Court of Alabama · 1898
- Countz v. CountzSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1875
- Rawson v. RawsonAppellate Court of Illinois · 1888
- Frickel v. FrickelThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo · 1893
- Wood v. WoodAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1901
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.