Loomis v. Loomis
| Decision Date | 04 June 1942 |
| Citation | 288 N.Y. 222,42 N.E.2d 495 |
| Parties | LOOMIS v. LOOMIS. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
Action by Jane J. Loomis against Edwin D. Loomis for a judgment declaring that the parties are husband and wife, and that a foreign decree of divorce obtained by defendant is void. From an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, 262 App.Div. 906, 28 N.Y.S.2d 809, which affirmed an order of the court at Special Term, Cuff, J., granting a motion by defendant to dismiss the complaint, plaintiff appeals.
Orders reversed and motion to dismiss the complaint denied. Stanley Faulkner, of New York City, for appellant.
David Schlang, of New York City, for respondent.
This is an appeal from an order of the Appellate Division, second department, affirmingan order of Special Term dismissing an amended complaint before answer upon motion made under rule 107 of the Rules of Civil Practice. The amended complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that plaintiff and defendant are husband and wife and that a foreign decree of divorce obtained by defendant is null and void.
Plaintiff and defendant were married in 1909 in the city and State of New York and continued to reside in this State until 1929 when they separated and they have continued to live apart since that time. In 1934 plaintiff applied to the Family Court of the Domestic Relations Court of the City of New York for an order awarding her support by her husband, the defendant here. An award was made and later increased. Thereafter in 1939 the latter order was vacated, after hearings held, upon the ground that the decree of divorce obtained by the defendant in the foreign jurisdiction was a valid one. It is the order entered on that finding which has been held to be an existing final ‘decree of a court of competent jurisdiction rendered on the merits, determining the same cause of action between the parties.’ Rules of Civil Practice, rule 107.
(1) In so far as applicable here, the Domestic Relations Court was established and such jurisdiction was conferred upon it by the Legislature as was necessary to enable it to compel the support of a wife by a husband who had abandoned or neglected to support her. N.Y.State Const.1925, art. 6, s 18; Domestic Relations Court Act, s 91 (L.1933, c. 482, as amended).
(2) In the exercise of its limited jurisdiction the court is authorized to hear and determine the cause and, of course, may determine whether the parties are husband and wife. Such determination is incidental to the exercise of any jurisdiction. For that limited purpose there is jurisdiction of the subject matter of the marriage.
(3) A determination by the Family Court that there is an existing marriage, or that one has been terminated, as a preliminary to exercising or declining jurisdiction, is, within its limited summary jurisdiction, binding in that court upon the parties and final until a different determination be there made. Domestic Relations Court Act, s 92, subds. (4 and 16). It is not binding on the parties in an action in the Supreme Court in which there is directly involved the question whether the same marriage exists or has been terminated. There is no identity of jurisdiction one is preliminary or incidental, the other direct and primary. There is no identity of cause of action one is for support and that only, the other for an adjudication of marital status.
The orders should be reversed, with costs in all courts, and the motion to dismiss the complaint denied.
Plaintiff sues as the wife of the defendant for a declaration of the invalidity of a divorce from her which he secured in a foreign jurisdiction. Heretofore she initiated a proceeding in the Family Court of the City of New York to compel her support by him as her husband. After trial thereof, that proceeding was dismissed on a finding that his foreign divorce is valid in this state. I agree that this former adjudication is not an estoppel in the present action.
The earlier proceeding in the Family Court was in its substantive nature a summary prosecution for a public tort of the defendant. Domestic Relations Court Act, title III, arts. 3, 4; Code Crim.Proc., part VI, titles VII, VIII, s 773 et seq. See Duffy v. People, 6 Hill 75;People v. Schenkel, 258 N.Y. 224, 179 N.E. 474. Cf. Matter of Kane v. Necci, 269 N.Y. 13, 198 N.E. 613. The present action is an ordinary civil prosecution brought by this plaintiff individually for the vindication of her status as wife of the defendant. See Civil Practice Act, ss 4, 6.
Though the petition in a proceeding in the Family Court may be made in the name of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Silliman
...judicata. 31 See Restatement, Judgments (1942) § 71, Comment: c. 32 Restatement, Judgments (1942) § 71, Comment: b. 33 Loomis v. Loomis, 1942, 288 N.Y. 222, 42 N.E.2d 495, reversing 1941, 262 App.Div. 906, 28 N.Y.S.2d 809, noted 147 A.L.R. 196. See this annotation for the authorities on all......
-
Lyons v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation
...that there had been no fraud in a proceeding before it, was conclusive in an action in the district court. In Loomis v. Loomis, 288 N.Y. 222, 42 N.E.2d 495, 147 A.L.R. 183, the Court of Appeals decided that a finding by the "Family Court" — a division of an inferior court in New York City —......
-
Gardner v. Gardner
...1092, 89 L.Ed. 1577; Wilkov v. Wilkov, 13 A.D.2d 471, 212 N.Y.S.2d 91; Sierra v. Sierra, 8 A.D.2d 708, 185 N.Y.S.2d 611; Loomis v. Loomis, 288 N.Y. 222, 42 N.E.2d 495.)' (Matter of Carter v. Carter, 19 A.D.2d 513, 240 N.Y.S.2d 141; see also Erdt v. Erdt, 77 Misc.2d 236, 238, 353 N.Y.S.2d 60......
-
McCarthy v. Motor Vehicle Acc. Indemnification Corp.
...rights'. (Matter of Mullane v. McKenzie, 269 N.Y. 369, 373, 199 N.E. 624, 625, 103 A.L.R. 758; and see Loomis v. Loomis, 288 N.Y. 222, 224-225, 42 N.E.2d 495, 496-497, 147 A.L.R. 183.) In Hessian Hills Country Club v. Home Ins. Co., 262 N.Y. 189, 201, 186 N.E. 439, 443, the court denied the......