155 N.Y. 129, Atherton v. Atherton

Citation:155 N.Y. 129
Party Name:MARY G. ATHERTON, Respondent, v. PETER LEE ATHERTON, Appellant.
Case Date:March 01, 1898
Court:New York Court of Appeals
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 129

155 N.Y. 129

MARY G. ATHERTON, Respondent,

v.

PETER LEE ATHERTON, Appellant.

New York Court of Appeal

March 1, 1898

Argued January 21, 1898.

Page 130

COUNSEL

Alex. P. Humphrey and Simon W. Rosendale for appellant. The Kentucky judgment is a bar to this action. (U.S. Const. art. 4, § 1; U.S. R. S. § 905; Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 914; Arndt v. Griggs, 134 U.S. 316; Lynch v. Murphy, 161 U.S. 247; Nelson on Divorce, § 28; 2 Kent's Com. 460; Scudder v. U. Nat. Bank, 91 U.S. 406; L. & G. W. S. Co. v. P. Ins. Co., 129 U.S. 397; Pritchard v. Norton, 106 U.S. 124; Rigney v. Rigney, 127 N.Y. 408; Laing v. Rigney, 160 U.S. 531; Ditson v. Ditson, 4 R. I. 87; 10 Abb. [ N. C.] 333; Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190; Kinnier v. Kinnier, 45 N.Y. 535.) There was no evidence to support the finding that the plaintiff, Mrs. Atherton, was a resident of the state of New York. (Queen v. Jackson, L. R. [ 1 Q. B.] 671; Code Civ. Pro. § 1763; de Meli v. de Meli, 120 N.Y. 485; Dupuy v. Wurtz, 53 N.Y. 556; Hart v. Kip, 148 N.Y. 306; Story's Conflict of Laws, § 744; Whart. Conflict of Laws, § 490; Warrender v. Warrender, 2 Cl. & F. 488; Dolphin v. Robbins, 7 H. L. C. 390.) There is error of law in the decree as to alimony for plaintiff and in its provisions for the support of the child. (Carpenter v. Osborn, 102 N.Y. 552; Clark v. Fosdick, 118 N.Y. 7; Galusha v. Galusha, 116 N.Y. 635; 138 N.Y. 272; Duryea v. Bliven, 122 N.Y. 567; People v. Sternberger, 153 N.Y. 684; Allen v. Affleck, 64 How. Pr. 380.)

William Kernan and A. M. Mills for respondent. It is sufficient to authorize the interposition of the court to grant a separation that there be ill-treatment and personal injury, or a reasonable apprehension of personal injury. (Whispell v. Whispell, 4 Barb. 217; Davies v. Davies, 55 Barb. 130;

Page 131

Byhin v. Byhin, 17 Abb. Pr. 20; Uhlmann v. Uhlmann, 17 Abb. [ [N. C.] 236; Lutz v. Lutz, 31 N.Y. S. R. 718; Straus v. Straus, 67 Hun, 491; Waltermire v. Waltermire, 110 N.Y. 183; de Meli v. de Meli, 5 Civ. Pro. Rep. 306; Evans v. Evans, 1 Hagg. Const. 35; Mason v. Mason, 1 Edw. Ch. 278.) The decree of divorce in Kentucky in favor of the defendant is no bar to this action. (Beckwith v. Beckwith, 24 Wkly. Dig. 5; Kerr v. Kerr, 41 N.Y. 272; Hoffman v. Hoffman, 46 N.Y. 30; People v. Baker, 76 N.Y. 78; O'Dea v. O'Dea, 101 N.Y. 23; Jones v. Jones, 108 N.Y. 415; Cross v. Cross, 22 Wkly. Dig. 309; 108 N.Y. 628; de Meli v. de Meli, 120 N.Y. 485; Rigney v. Rigney, 127 N.Y. 408; Williams v. Williams, 130 N.Y. 193; Matter of De Garamo, 86 Hun, 390; People v. Karlsioe, 1 A.D. 571; Bell v. Bell, 4 A.D. 527.) Upon the findings of fact by the court the plaintiff had the legal right to change her residence and domicile from the state of Kentucky to the state of New York as she did, and was and is entitled to the decree granted to her. (2 Bishop on Mar. & Div. § 125; Cheever v. Wilson, 9 Wall. 108; Hunt v. Hunt, 72 N.Y. 217; Rundell v. Van Inwegan, 9 Civ. Pro. Rep. 328; Mellen v. Mellen, 10 Abb. [ N. C.] 329; Dupuy v. Wurtz, 53 N.Y. 556; Prentiss v. Butler, 37 N.Y. S. R. 605; Bassett v. Wheeler, 84 N.Y. 466; de Meli v. de Meli, 120 N.Y. 486; Phelps v. N.Y. N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 17 A.D. 392.) There is no error of law in the decree as to the custody of the child. (People ex rel. v. Mercein, 3 Hill, 400; People ex rel. v. Mercein, 8 Paige, 47; Mercein v. People ex rel., 25 Wend. 64; Matter of Hartman, 23 Wkly. Dig. 128; People ex rel. Brush v. Brown, 35 Hun, 324; Allen v. Affleck, 64 How. Pr. 580; Code Civ. Pro. § 1766; Matter of Waldron, 13 Johns. 418; Matter of Maurer, 18 Wkly. Dig. 568; People ex rel. v. Olmstead, 27 Barb. 9.) There...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP