Hendrick v. Biggar
| Decision Date | 25 November 1913 |
| Citation | 209 N.Y. 440,103 N.E. 763 |
| Parties | HENDRICK v. BIGGAR. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
Action by Agnes Mary Hendrick against Laura Biggar. From a judgment of the Second Appellate Division (151 App. Div. 522,136 N. Y. Supp. 306) unanimously affirming, after modification by reduction of the damages, a judgment entered on a verdict rendered for plaintiff at Trial Term of the Supreme Court, defendant appeals. Reversed, and new trial granted.
See, also, 152 App. Div. 930,137 N. Y. Supp. 1123.Samuel I. Frankenstein, of New York City, for appellant.
Charles Goldzier and Louis J. Vorhaus, both of New York City, for respondent.
This action was brought to recover damages for the alleged alienation of the affections of respondent's husband by appellant and thus far has resulted in the affirmance of a judgment for $30,000 for such cause.
The respondent sought to establish her cause of action by proof, amongst other things, of adultery by her husband with the appellant. Part of this proposed proof consisted of parol testimony concerning the relations of said parties. But in addition to this there was offered a judgment roll in an action brought by respondent against her husband wherein and whereby she was awarded an absolute divorce on the ground of his adultery with the appellant, and this judgment roll was received, not under a plea of former adjudication, but as evidence. Its reception in this manner, over proper objections, presents the main questions which have been argued on this appeal and which are the only ones necessary to be considered. These questions are: First, whether a judgment in a divorce action may under the provisions of section 1757 of the Code of Civil Procedure become an adjudication binding the corespondent as to issues of adultery tried in such action where the corespondent has become a party to such action as provided in said section and contested or suffered default as to said issues after appearing to defend; and, second, whether the evidence in this case establishes that appellant did so become a party to the divorce action in question and to the trial of the issues therein as to be bound by the judgment and make it evidence against her in this action.
[1] So far as concerns the first question we believe that a corespondent may so become a party to a divorce action wherein allegations of adultery are made against him that he will be bound by the adjudication therein at least for such purposes as are here involved.
Section 1757 of the Code, subd. 2, provides: etc.
This appeal presents for consideration one of the second class of cases where the corespondent had not been originally served with a copy of the summons and complaint but voluntarily appeared and demanded service of the latter, and in the first instance we shall consider an assumed case where the judgment roll in the divorce action duly discloses that a corespondent has thus appeared and joined issue and contested the allegations of adultery made against him or, after service of the complaint and appearing to defend, has been duly placed in default on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Holmes' Estate
...marital status extend to the fact upon which the judgment was based that a valid marriage previously existed. See, also, Hendrick v. Biggar, 209 N.Y. 440, 103 N.E. 763;Townsend v. Van Buskirk, 22 App.Div. 441, 48 N.Y.S. 260, appeal dismissed 162 N.Y. 265, 56 N.E. 837. In such cases we apply......
-
Ryan v. New York Telephone Co.
...Greenleaf's Evidence, §§ 522, 523; see, also, Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v. Nieberg Realty Corp., 250 N.Y. 304, 165 N.E. 456; Hendrick v. Biggar, 209 N.Y. 440, 103 N.E. 763.) The doctrine of collateral estoppel, a narrower species of res judicata, precludes a party from relitigating in a subsequ......
-
Browne v. Bd. of Educ.
...of that question, and between those parties, should be closed forever." Fish v. Vanderlip, 218 N.Y. 29, 36-37(1916); Hendrick v. Biggar, 209 N.Y. 440 (1913). "It is a doctrine intended to reduce litigation and conserve the resources of the court and litigants and it is based upon the genera......
-
Spadaro v. Newark Ins. Co.
...shall not be heard a second time on an issue which he has once been called upon and permitted to try and contest' (Hendrick v. Biggar, 209 N.Y. 440, 444, 103 N.E. 763, 764), but as the Court said in Matter of New York State Labor Relations Board v. Holland Laundry, 294 N.Y. 480, at pages 49......