Urquhart v. Urquhart
| Decision Date | 13 November 1947 |
| Citation | 77 N.E.2d 7,297 N.Y. 689 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Peter A. URQUHART, Respondent, v. John A. URQUHART, Appellant. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 272 App.Div. 60, 69 N.Y.S.2d 57.
Action by Peter Andrew Urquhart, an infant, by Teresa Wilson, his guardian ad litem, against John A. Urquhart, and another, for declaratory judgment that plaintiff is the legitimate son of defendants. The facts alleged in the complaint were that the infant plaintiff was the child of John A. Urquhart and Vivien Costello Urquhart, born more than three years after a decree of divorce of the parents was entered in Arkansas. The action was based on the theory that the Arkansas divorce was void in that neither parent was domiciled in Arkansas. Plaintiff contended that at the time of his birth they were still husband and wife. The father was remarried to another woman soon after the divorce, but he continued to cohabit with his former wife, who appeared to have been unaware of the subsequent marriage until some time after the infant plaintiff was born.
The Arkansas divorce was obtained by the wife on the appearance of the husband. The question involved was whether his appearance gave validity to the Arkansas decree so as to make it binding upon their child conceived thereafter.
From an order denying the named defendant's motion for a judgment on the pleadings, 188 Misc. 613, 66 N.Y.S.2d 472, John A. Urquhart appealed. The order was affirmed by the Appellate Division, 272 App.Div. 60, 69 N.Y.S.2d 57. The Appellate Division held that the infant was not precluded from attacking the Arkansas Divorce decree on ground that the Arkansas court did not have jurisdiction to enter the decree because neither of the parties was domiciled therein, notwithstanding the fact that the decree would have been binding on the parties themselves. From the order of the Appellate Division, John A. Urquhart appeals by permission of the Appellate Division, 272 App.Div. 757, 70 N.Y.S.2d 136, which certified the following questions:
‘1. Does the complaint state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action?
2. May the Plaintiff collaterally attack the validity of the Arkansas decree?
3. Is the Plaintiff estopped from collaterally attacking the Arkansas decree in the courts of the State of New York?‘Louis F. Huttenlocher, of New York City, for appellant.
Weidlich & Rogers, of New York City (Clifton F. Weidlich, of New York City, of counse...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Old Colony Trust Co. v. Porter
...of Lindgren's Estate, 293 N.Y. 18, 55 N.E.2d 849, 153 A.L.R. 936; Urquhart v. Urquhart, 272 App.Div. 60, 69 N.Y.S.2d 57, affirmed 297 N.Y. 689, 77 N.E.2d 7;Senor v. Senor, 272 App.Div. 306, 70 N.Y.S.2d 909, affirmed 297 N.Y. 800, 78 N.E.2d 20;Kiessenbeck v. Kiessenbeck, 145 Or. 82, 26 P.2d ......
-
Rosenbluth v. Rosenbluth
...N.E.2d 849, 153 A.L.R. 936, which involved a Florida decree, and Urquhart v. Urquhart, 272 App.Div. 60, 69 N.Y.S.2d 57, affirmed (1947) 297 N.Y. 689, 77 N.E.2d 7, which involved an Arkansas In Schwartz v. Schwartz, Sup., 219 N.Y.S.2d 751, decided August 3, 1961, the Court permitted a strang......
-
Old Colony Trust Co. v. Porter
...Minn. 291. Meade v. Mueller, 139 N. J. Eq. 491. Matter of Lindgren, 293 N.Y. 18. Urquhart v. Urquhart, 272 App. Div. (N. Y.) 60, affirmed 297 N.Y. 689. Senor v. Senor, 272 App. Div. (N. Y.) 306, affirmed 297 800. Kiessenbeck v. Kiessenbeck, 145 Ore. 82. Grossman's Estate, 263 Pa. 130. Ex pa......
-
Urquhart v. Urquhart, 2772
...which it had formerly taken in the Peter Urquhart case with regard to the Arkansas judgment. In the latter case the New York Court, 297 N.Y. 689, 77 N.E.2d 7, had answered affirmatively questions on appeal as to whether Peter Urquhart could collaterally attack the Arkansas divorce, without ......