Campbell v. Campbell
| Decision Date | 27 April 1934 |
| Citation | 191 N.E. 592,264 N.Y. 616 |
| Parties | CAMPBELL v. CAMPBELL. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Action by Charles Campbell against Mary L. Campbell. An order denying plaintiff's motion to strike out certain defenses contained in defendant's amended answer was reversed (239 App. Div. 682, 268 N. Y. S. 789), and defendant appeals.
Order affirmed, and certified questions answered.
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered January 19, 1934, which reversed an order of Special Term denying a motion by plaintiff to strike out the second, third, and fourth defenses in defendant's amended answer and granted the motion. The complaint alleged that plaintiff and defendant were married on June 26, 1919, and that plaintiff was induced to consent to such marriage by reason of false representations of defendant that she was a chaste and virtuous woman; and demanded that the marriage be annulled. The second defense in the amended answer alleged that plaintiff had full knowledge in or about the year 1922 and thereafter of the facts and had been guilty of gross laches in bringing the action. The third defense alleged that the cause of action set forth in the complaint did not accrue within ten years next preceding the commencement of this action. Civil Practice Act, § 53. The fourth defense alleged that the action was not commenced within six years from the time when the cause of action alleged in the complaint accrued, or within six years from the time when plaintiff had actual knowledge of such facts. Civil Practice Act, § 48.
The following questions were certified:
‘1. Is the second defense contained in the amended answer sufficient in law upon the face thereof?
‘2. Is the third defense contained in the amended answer sufficient in law upon the face thereof?
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
Frank W. Chambers, James L. Clare, and Henry Siegrist, all of New York City, for appellant.
Michael Popper, Isidore Popper, and Isidor Block, all of New York City, for respondent.
Order affirmed, without costs, and questions certified answered in the negative. No opinion.
KELLOGG, J., not sitting.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Campbell v. Thomas
...of the person whom he had fraudulently induced to marry him"); Campbell v. Campbell, 239 App.Div. 682, 683, 268 N.Y.S. 789, affd. 264 N.Y. 616, 191 N.E. 592 ("It was the apparent purpose of the Legislature not only to protect the defrauded party by giving a right to annul, but also to prote......
-
Ventura v. Ventura
... ... [53 Misc.2d 885] (Landsman v. Landsman, 302 N.Y. 45, 96 N.E.2d 81.) Neither laches (Campbell v. Campbell, 239 App.Div. 682, 268 N.Y.S. 789, affd. 264 N.Y. 616, 191 N.E. 592) nor the birth of a child of the second marriage can clothe it with ... ...
-
Zeitlan v. Zeitlan
...N.Y.S. 629, 632; Duffy v. Duffy, 23 Misc.2d 268, 201 N.Y.S.2d 351; Campbell v. Campbell, 239 App.Div. 682, 268 N.Y.S. 789, affd. 264 N.Y. 616, 191 N.E. 592). Hence, the six-year Statute of Limitations does not apply or bar this counterclaim. The cases relied on by plaintiff (Romano v. Roman......
-
Romano v. Romano
...dissenting opinions of the history of these statutory limitations in Campbell v. Campbell, 239 App.Div. 682, 268 N.Y.S. 789, affd. 264 N.Y. 616, 191 N.E. 592. The important question raised by this case is, then, whether the time limit for the commencement of the action is an inherent part o......