Rennie v. Rennie

38 N.E.2d 143, 287 N.Y. 86, 1941 N.Y. LEXIS 1392
New York Court of Appeals·Decided November 27, 1941·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

*89 Per Curiam.

We agree with the Trial Term that the separation agreement alleged in the second cause of action was repudiated by the wife in the counterclaim for “ suitable maintenance which she interposed in the New Jersey action. The issues raised by that counterclaim were tried in the New Jersey suit and were therein determined against the wife by the final decree of divorce as entered in favor of the husband on November 22, 1938. It follows, as the Trial Term held, that after that date the separation agreement alleged in the second cause of action had no force or effect.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the judgment of the Trial Term affirmed, without costs.

Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ., concur.

Ordered accordingly.

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

Rennie v. Rennie, 38 N.E.2d 143, 287 N.Y. 86, 1941 N.Y. LEXIS 1392 (N.Y. 1941).

38 N.E.2d 143 (Rennie v. Rennie) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Siderpali, S.P.A. v. Judal Industries, Inc.
833 F. Supp. 1023 (S.D. New York, 1993)
Kulok v. Kulok
40 Misc. 2d 999 (New York District Court, 1963)
Cavellier v. Cavellier
4 A.D.2d 600 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1957)
Spade v. Spade
6 Misc. 2d 170 (New York Supreme Court, 1957)
Auten v. Auten
124 N.E.2d 99 (New York Court of Appeals, 1954)
Mackay v. Mackay
205 Misc. 470 (New York Supreme Court, 1952)
Hammer v. Hammer
278 A.D. 396 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1951)
Hettich v. Hettich
278 A.D. 518 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1951)