Heafey v. Heafey

New York Supreme Court

Heafey v. Heafey

142 Misc. 147, 254 N.Y.S. 82, 1931 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 916

DecidedDecember 10, 1931

StatusPublished

This text of 142 Misc. 147 (Heafey v. Heafey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Heafey v. Heafey, 142 Misc. 147, 254 N.Y.S. 82, 1931 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 916 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Hammer, J.

Motion for counsel fee is denied. Where the wife brings an action to annul the marriage the court may not award counsel fee or alimony. “ The principle * * * is that if the wife succeed, the decree nullifying the marriage relates back to the contract of marriage and the parties in that event are in the same position as if they never had been married; in other words, that the wife having elected to rescind the contract, can claim nothing under it.” (Farnham v. Farnham, 225 N. Y. 155, 159, citing Jones v. Brinsmade, 183 id. 258, and other cases.) Where the ground for annulment arises, as in this case, out of the bigamy of the husband, the first marriage being valid, the second marriage is void and there is no contract or status of marriage. The right to counsel fee or alimony is predicated upon a duty of the husband to the wife springing from the contract and status. There being none, a counsel fee may not be awarded. (Matter of Moncrief, 235 N. Y. 390.)

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

Hammer, J.

Motion for counsel fee is denied. Where the wife brings an action to annul the marriage the court may not award counsel fee or alimony. “ The principle * * * is that if the wife succeed, the decree nullifying the marriage relates back to the contract of marriage and the parties in that event are in the same position as if they never had been married; in other words, that the wife having elected to rescind the contract, can claim nothing under it.” (Farnham v. Farnham, 225 N. Y. 155, 159, citing Jones v. Brinsmade, 183 id. 258, and other cases.) Where the ground for annulment arises, as in this case, out of the bigamy of the husband, the first marriage being valid, the second marriage is void and there is no contract or status of marriage. The right to counsel fee or alimony is predicated upon a duty of the husband to the wife springing from the contract and status. There being none, a counsel fee may not be awarded. (Matter of Moncrief, 235 N. Y. 390.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 Misc. 147, 254 N.Y.S. 82, 1931 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heafey-v-heafey-nysupct-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack