Higley v. Higley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Higley v. Higley

257 A.D. 877, 11 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8249

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 10, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 257 A.D. 877 (Higley v. Higley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Higley v. Higley, 257 A.D. 877, 11 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8249 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from an order denying his motion to strike from the amended answer of the defendant all denials of and objections to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in the above action and to strike from said answer the defense of lack of jurisdiction. The defendant made a motion to set aside the service of the summons and complaint which motion was denied and thereafter the defendant served an answer and amended answer in which the question of the jurisdiction of the court over the subject-matter was raised. After the denial of the motion to set aside the summons and complaint the defendant made an application for alimony and counsel fees which was granted and the defendant in her amended answer to the amended complaint raised the question as to jurisdiction of the court over the subject-matter. The court below has held that this matter can better be tried out in the trial of the action than it can be determined upon conflicting affidavits. With this we agree. The order appealed from is affirmed, with the costs of this appeal to the respondent. Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Hill, P. J., McNamee, Crapser and Bliss, JJ., concur. [See, also, ante, p. 61.]

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

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from an order denying his motion to strike from the amended answer of the defendant all denials of and objections to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in the above action and to strike from said answer the defense of lack of jurisdiction. The defendant made a motion to set aside the service of the summons and complaint which motion was denied and thereafter the defendant served an answer and amended answer in which the question of the jurisdiction of the court over the subject-matter was raised. After the denial of the motion to set aside the summons and complaint the defendant made an application for alimony and counsel fees which was granted and the defendant in her amended answer to the amended complaint raised the question as to jurisdiction of the court over the subject-matter. The court below has held that this matter can better be tried out in the trial of the action than it can be determined upon conflicting affidavits. With this we agree. The order appealed from is affirmed, with the costs of this appeal to the respondent. Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Hill, P. J., McNamee, Crapser and Bliss, JJ., concur. [See, also, ante, p. 61.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D. 877, 11 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/higley-v-higley-nyappdiv-1939.