143 N.Y. 354, Gray v. Gray

Citation:143 N.Y. 354
Party Name:ELIZABETH A. GRAY, Respondent, v. JAMES C. GRAY, Appellant.
Case Date:October 16, 1894
Court:New York Court of Appeals
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 354

143 N.Y. 354

ELIZABETH A. GRAY, Respondent,

v.

JAMES C. GRAY, Appellant.

New York Court of Appeal

October 16, 1894

Argued October 8, 1894.

Page 355

COUNSEL

Charles A. Boston for appellant. The order of the General Term is appealable to this court. ( Collins v. Collins, 80 N.Y. 1.) The court was without jurisdiction to grant this order. ( Cutler v. Wright, 22 N.Y. 471; Lorillard v. Clyde, 86 id. 384; Allen v. Patterson, 7 id. 476; Prindle v. Caruthers, 15 id. 425; Angell v. Van Schaick, 132 id. 187; Code Civ. Pro. § 831; De Meli v. De Meli, 120 N.Y. 485; Ferrier v. Ferrier, 4 Edw. 296; Muller v. Earl, 5 J. & S. 388; Stanton v. Swain, 10 Civ. Pro. Rep. 12; Bostwick v. Menck, 4 Daly, 68; Tiffany v. Bowerman, 2 Hun, 643; Harrison v. Harrison, 20 Ala. 629; People v. Dawdell, 25 Mich. 247; Reed v. Reed, 52 id. 117; Conway v. Beazley, 3 Hagg. Ecc. 639; Hawey v. Farnie, L. R. [ 6 P. D.] 35; L. R. [ 8 App. Cas.] 43; Stewart on Mar. & Div. § § 201, 218, 221; Leith v. Leith, 39 N.H. 20; Barber v. Root, 10 Mass. 260; Sewall v. Sewall, 122 id. 156; Reel v. Elder, 62 Penn. St. 208; Colvin v. Reed, 55 id. 375; Ditson v. Ditson, 4 R. I. 87; Pitt v. Pitt, 4 MacQueen H. of L. 627; Erkenbrach v. Erkenbrach, 96 N.Y. 456; Dickinson v. Dickinson, 63 Hun, 516; Peugnet v. Phelps, 48 Barb. 566; Chamberlain v. Chamberlain, 63 Hun, 96; 2 Bishop on Mar., Div. & Sep. §§ 144, 183; Brown on Jurisdiction, § 77; Lloyd on Div. 35;

Page 356

Cooley on Const. Law, § 230; Hanover v. Turner, 14 Mass. 224; Sewall v. Sewall, 122 id. 156; Cheever v. Wilson, 9 Wall. 108; Strader v. Graham, 10 How. Pr. 82; Hoffman v. Hoffman, 46 N.Y. 30; People v. Baker, 76 id. 78; Hunt v. Hunt, 72 id. 217; Delafield v. Brady, 108 id. 524; L. S. R. R. Co. v. Roach, 80 id. 339; U.S. v. Saunders, 120 U.S. 126; 22 Wall. 492; Badeau v. U. S., 130 U.S. 439; Plimpton v. Bigelow, 93 N.Y. 592; Coats v. Donnell, 94 id. 178; Vanderpoel v. Gorman, 140 id. 563; Douglass v. P. Ins. Co., 138 id. 209; Kerr v. Kerr, 41 id. 272.)The application of the general principles of equity demanded that alimony pendente lite and counsel fees should be refused. ( Collins v. Collins, 71 N.Y. 269; 80 id. 1; Maxwell v. Maxwell, 28 Hun, 566; Moller v. Moller, 115 N.Y. 466; Lyon v. Lyon, 62 Barb. 138; Monk v. Monk, 7 Robt. 153; 2 Bishop on Mar., Div. & Sep. §§ 714, 715; 1...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP