Brown v. Brown

• Decision Date: 24 January 1935
• Citation: 266 N.Y. 532,195 N.E. 186
• Parties: Anna F. BROWN, Respondent, v. Edward G. BROWN, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

266 N.Y. 532

195 N.E. 186

Anna F. BROWN, Respondent,

v.Edward G. BROWN, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Jan. 24, 1935.

Appeal from a judgment, entered July 6, 1934, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (242 App. Div. 33, 272 N. Y. S. 877), which reversed on the law a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a decision of the court at a Trial Term dismissing the complaint, and directed the entry of judgment in favor of plaintiff for a stated amount. The complaint alleged that the defendant and plaintiff were husband and wife, that in October, 1932, the defendant abandoned the plaintiff and refused to support and maintain her, and demanded judgment for the moneys expended by her for her separate support from the time of the abandonment to the commencement of the action. The trial court found that prior to August 7, 1920, the defendant was married to Vivina Haynes; that prior to such date plaintiff was informed by defendant that he was a married man; that, deciding to marry, they agreed that defendant should go to South Dakota and obtain a divorce from his then wife; that in January, 1920, the defendant obtained a divorce from Vivina Haynes Brown in South Dakota upon the ground of abandonment; that Vivina Haynes Brown did not appear in such proceeding nor was she represented by counsel; that on or about August 7, 1920, plaintiff and defendant underwent a marriage ceremony in this state; that at all times the defendant and Vivina Haynes Brown were residents of New York state; that the latter was still alive; and that there had been no fraud or deceit practiced by the defendant upon the plaintiff. As conclusions of law, the trial court found that the South Dakota divorce was invalid, and that there was no existing marriage between plaintiff and defendant recognized by the laws of the state of New York. The Appellate Division, in directing the entry of judgment in favor of plaintiff, held that a party may not be heard to impeach a decree or judgment which he himself has procured to be entered in his own favor, and that plaintiff's allegations as to the marriage of plaintiff and defendant were not under the circumstances overcome by defendant's proof of the invalidity of the dissolution of a previous marriage of defendant with another woman now living.Chester J. Winslow, of Frankfort, and James Gilchrist and Nellie Gilchrist, both of Ilion, for appellant.

Fred J....