Kerr v. Kerr

134 A.D. 141, 118 N.Y.S. 801, 1909 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2795
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 8, 1909
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 134 A.D. 141 (Kerr v. Kerr) 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
Kerr v. Kerr, 134 A.D. 141, 118 N.Y.S. 801, 1909 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2795 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1909).

Opinions

Gaynor, J.:

The evidence is that the defendant went to the Grand Central Station with his hand-bag, met a woman not his wife as she came in on a train at about 3 :30 p. m., took her with her hand-baggage to a hotel in a cab, registered her with himself as his wife by his own handwriting, under the name “ George Knight and wife, New [142]*142Haven ”, had a room assigned to them upstairs in the hotel, and immediately went with her into the lift and up as if to the room, taking their baggage with them. A witness waited in the hotel until midnight to see if he came dowm, but did not see him. There is no description of the woman, nor of their demeanor toward each other; the attorney for the plaintiff who tried the case seemed to have no notion of the requirements as to evidence in such cases. Though opportunity was shown, inclination, it is said, was not. But. seeking such bedroom privacy was evidence of inclination, stronger than any ordinary act. of affection between them at the station or in the cab. What did they register in a hotel as man and wife and retire to a bedroom for? We have it of old that “it is presumed he saith not a pater noster ” there (Burton’s Anat. of Mel. vol. 2 [1st Am. ed.), p. 446, part 3, sec. 3, mem. 1, sub. 2).

The judgment should be affirmed.

Hirschberg, P. J., Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred in result; Jerks, J., read for reversal.

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

Related

Agulnick v. Agulnick
2020 NY Slip Op 07335 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Time Square Books, Inc. v. City of Rochester
223 A.D.2d 270 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Rejent v. Liberation Publications, Inc.
197 A.D.2d 240 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Smith v. State
516 A.2d 985 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1986)
People ex rel. Pena v. New York State Division of Parole
83 A.D.2d 887 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
Salomon v. Salomon
102 Misc. 2d 427 (New York Supreme Court, 1979)
Maskaly v. State
450 P.2d 790 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1969)
Noteboom v. Savin
326 P.2d 772 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1958)
Stoops v. Stoops
61 Pa. D. & C. 435 (Adams County Court of Common Pleas, 1947)
Engebretsen v. Engebretsen
11 So. 2d 322 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1942)
Jenkins v. Jenkins
204 P. 165 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1922)
Hartshorn v. Hartshorn
1917 OK 538 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1917)
People ex rel. Sheldon v. Curtin
27 N.Y. Crim. 535 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1912)
Butler v. Butler
134 N.Y.S. 108 (New York Supreme Court, 1912)
McNeir v. McNeir
76 Misc. 661 (New York Supreme Court, 1911)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
134 A.D. 141, 118 N.Y.S. 801, 1909 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2795, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kerr-v-kerr-nyappdiv-1909.