Lathrop v. Lathrop

271 A.D.2d 807

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

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

271 A.D.2d 807 (Lathrop v. Lathrop) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Tebo v. . Baker
77 N.Y. 33 (New York Court of Appeals, 1879)
Curtis v. Powers
146 A.D. 246 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1911)
Johnson v. Ackerman
192 A.D. 890 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1920)