Rattray v. Huntting
| Decision Date | 05 July 1960 |
| Citation | 205 N.Y.S.2d 232,11 A.D.2d 785 |
| Parties | Jeannette Edwards RATTRAY, Respondent, v. Sally Jennings HUNTTING, Appellant, and Daniel O. Huntting, by his guardian ad litem, Lucius D. Madeo, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Douglas E. Dayton, East Hampton, for appellant.
Griffing, Smith, Tasker & Lundberg, Riverhead, for respondents, Reginald C. Smith, Riverhead, of counsel. Before NOLAN, P. J., and UGHETTA, PETTE and BRENNAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action by a niece of the defendants to annul their marriage on the ground that at the time it was contracted the defendant husband was a lunatic, the defendant wife appeals: (1) from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered January 20, 1960, granting the annulment after a non-jury trial; and (2) from the decision of said court on which such judgment was entered.
Interlocutory judgment reversed on the law and the facts, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.
On October 7, 1957, the defendant Daniel O. Huntting, aged 79, and the defendant Sally Jennings, aged 63, were married by his minister at East Hampton, New York. Neither had been previously married. On June 9, 1959, more than 20 months after the marriage, in a proceeding under article 81 of the Civil Practice Act, the defendant husband was duly adjudicated an incompetent by reason of imbecility arising from old age or loss of memory and understanding. This action was commenced soon thereafter, resulting in the interlocutory judgment appealed from.
The trial court based its decision in part on testimony that the defendant husband was habitually incontinent, that he had high blood pressure, and that he fell from a horse about three weeks after marriage when the saddle cinch became loose. The last mentioned fact is, of course, of no probative value on the question of the husband's mental capacity. As to the high blood pressure, plaintiff's own medical expert stated that in this case it was of little significance. As to the incontinence: said expert had examined the husband on July 23, 1959, more than 21 months after the marriage. He (the expert) testified that loss of sphincter control is frequently seen after mental deterioration has been in progress for some time. But other than such generalities, there is nothing in the record to show that at the time of the marriage the husband was afflicted with loss of sphincter control. Nor is there any evidence as to the extent or duration of any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson, Matter of
...was "retroacting", it was confirmed rather than contradicted by other direct proof adduced at the hearing (cf. Rattray v. Huntting, 11 A.D.2d 785, 205 N.Y.S.2d 232; Broat v. Broat, 18 N.Y.S.2d The testimony of other witnesses called by the petitioners established that in or about the fall o......
-
K.A.L. ex rel. S.S.P. v. R.P.
...1992, p. 25 (Sup.Ct. Westchester County 1992), citing Wilson v. Mitchell, 10 Misc.2d 559 (Sup.Ct. Kings Cty.1957) and Rattray v. Hunting, 11 A.D.2d 785 (2nd Dept.1960). However, these cases are clearly different from the case here: in this case, there is no suggestion that the decedent was ......
-
Estate of Obermeier, Matter of
...the party challenging the action is required to establish incompetency at the time the action took place (see, Rattray v. Huntting, 11 A.D.2d 785, 205 N.Y.S.2d 232, appeal dismissed sub nom. Rattray v. Raynor, 10 N.Y.2d 494, 225 N.Y.S.2d 39, 180 N.E.2d 429). In this case, Surrogate's Court ......
-
Rattray v. Raynor
...New York. Oct. 5, 1961. Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, 11 A.D.2d 768, 205 N.Y.S.2d 234, and 11 A.D.2d 785, 205 N.Y.S.2d 232. The first action was brought by the sister of a 79-year-old bridegroom against the bride and the bridegroom to annul the marriage, ......