McNair v. McNair

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McNair v. McNair

140 A.D. 226, 125 N.Y.S. 1, 1910 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2902

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

DecidedOctober 20, 1910

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 140 A.D. 226 (McNair v. McNair) 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

McNair v. McNair, 140 A.D. 226, 125 N.Y.S. 1, 1910 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2902 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Rich, J.:

This appeal is from a judgment denying the application of the plaintiff for a judgment annulling her marriage with the defendant upon the ground that the defendant was incapable of entering into the marriage state. It appears that the parties were married in January, 1899, and resided together until 1910, when this action was commenced.

The defendant at the time of his marriage was physically incapable of meeting the obligations of the marriage, and it has never been consummated.

We are entirely satisfied from the evidence that a fraud was perpetrated by the defendant, and that the facts warrant the interference of a court of equity. The action was not commenced within the time provided by section 1752 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the learned justice at Special Term decided that the cause of [227]*227action was barred by the statute. It is true that the statute was not pleaded, but we know of no rule which requires the court to deny to a party that which would otherwise be a legal right, because of the Statute of Limitations, unless it is pleaded as a defense. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 413; Kaiser v. Kaiser, 16 Hun, 602; 8 Abb. N. C. 187, note.)

The judgment must be reversed and the proceeding remitted to the Special Term for further consideration.

Hirschberg, P. J., Woodward, Burr and Carr, JJ., concurred.

Judgment reversed and proceedings remitted to the Special Term or trials for a rehearing.

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

Rich, J.:

This appeal is from a judgment denying the application of the plaintiff for a judgment annulling her marriage with the defendant upon the ground that the defendant was incapable of entering into the marriage state. It appears that the parties were married in January, 1899, and resided together until 1910, when this action was commenced.

The defendant at the time of his marriage was physically incapable of meeting the obligations of the marriage, and it has never been consummated.

We are entirely satisfied from the evidence that a fraud was perpetrated by the defendant, and that the facts warrant the interference of a court of equity. The action was not commenced within the time provided by section 1752 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the learned justice at Special Term decided that the cause of [227]*227action was barred by the statute. It is true that the statute was not pleaded, but we know of no rule which requires the court to deny to a party that which would otherwise be a legal right, because of the Statute of Limitations, unless it is pleaded as a defense. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 413; Kaiser v. Kaiser, 16 Hun, 602; 8 Abb. N. C. 187, note.)

The judgment must be reversed and the proceeding remitted to the Special Term for further consideration.

Hirschberg, P. J., Woodward, Burr and Carr, JJ., concurred.

Judgment reversed and proceedings remitted to the Special Term or trials for a rehearing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D. 226, 125 N.Y.S. 1, 1910 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcnair-v-mcnair-nyappdiv-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack