Lathrop v. Lathrop

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lathrop v. Lathrop

271 A.D.2d 807

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

DecidedOctober 2, 1946

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 807 (Lathrop v. Lathrop) 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

Lathrop v. Lathrop, 271 A.D.2d 807 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

Order reversed, without costs of this appeal to either party, and motion denied,' without costs. Memorandum: Defendant was not in contempt for failure to obey an injunction order restraining him from proceeding in obtaining a Nevada divorce decree. There was no personal service on him of such injunction order and he was without actual knowledge of the restraining order. Such decree may therefore be set forth in his supplemental answer. (Tebo v. Baker, 77 N. Y. 33; Curtis v. Powers, 146 App. Div. 246; Johnson v. Ackerman, 192 App. Div. 890; Levine v. Moskowits, 206‘App. Div. 194.) All concur. (The order grants plaintiff’s motion to strike out certain paragraphs of defendant’s supplemental answer.) Present — Taylor, P. J., Dowling, Harris, McCurn and Larkin, JJ. [See post, p. 862.]

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

Order reversed, without costs of this appeal to either party, and motion denied,' without costs. Memorandum: Defendant was not in contempt for failure to obey an injunction order restraining him from proceeding in obtaining a Nevada divorce decree. There was no personal service on him of such injunction order and he was without actual knowledge of the restraining order. Such decree may therefore be set forth in his supplemental answer. (Tebo v. Baker, 77 N. Y. 33; Curtis v. Powers, 146 App. Div. 246; Johnson v. Ackerman, 192 App. Div. 890; Levine v. Moskowits, 206‘App. Div. 194.) All concur. (The order grants plaintiff’s motion to strike out certain paragraphs of defendant’s supplemental answer.) Present — Taylor, P. J., Dowling, Harris, McCurn and Larkin, JJ. [See post, p. 862.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 807, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lathrop-v-lathrop-nyappdiv-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack