Aymar v. Roff

New York Court of Chancery

Aymar v. Roff

3 Johns. Ch. 49, 1817 N.Y. LEXIS 178, 1817 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 30

CourtNew York Court of Chancery

DecidedOctober 10, 1817

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 3 Johns. Ch. 49 (Aymar v. Roff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aymar v. Roff, 3 Johns. Ch. 49, 1817 N.Y. LEXIS 178, 1817 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 30 (N.Y. 1817).

Pincite

Opinion

The following order was made by the court

“Oh reading the bill, and on motion of Mr. D. S. Jones, of counsel for the plaintiffs, and the said infant being examined in court, and repeating the same declaration r Ordered, that the said Eliza Arm Aymar be pla' ced under the protection of this court, as. a ward thereof, and that the defendant refrain from holding any conversa[51]*51tion¿ or from having any intercourse- or correspondence with the said Eliza, so long as this order remains in force, under the pain of incurring a contempt.”

N. B. No further order was asked for in this case, so that nothing further was done, in the first instance. It appears, however, from the cases referred to in Eyre v. Countess of Shaftsbury, (2 P. Wms. 111, 112.) that the parson and all other agents concerned in the marriage of infants, without the consent of their guardians have been committed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The following order was made by the court

“Oh reading the bill, and on motion of Mr. D. S. Jones, of counsel for the plaintiffs, and the said infant being examined in court, and repeating the same declaration r Ordered, that the said Eliza Arm Aymar be pla' ced under the protection of this court, as. a ward thereof, and that the defendant refrain from holding any conversa[51]*51tion¿ or from having any intercourse- or correspondence with the said Eliza, so long as this order remains in force, under the pain of incurring a contempt.”

N. B. No further order was asked for in this case, so that nothing further was done, in the first instance. It appears, however, from the cases referred to in Eyre v. Countess of Shaftsbury, (2 P. Wms. 111, 112.) that the parson and all other agents concerned in the marriage of infants, without the consent of their guardians have been committed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Johns. Ch. 49, 1817 N.Y. LEXIS 178, 1817 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 30, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aymar-v-roff-nychanct-1817.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack