Riley v. Riley

New York Supreme Court

Riley v. Riley

26 N.Y.S. 164, 73 Hun 575, 80 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 575, 57 N.Y. St. Rep. 270

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 1, 1893

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 26 N.Y.S. 164 (Riley v. Riley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Riley v. Riley, 26 N.Y.S. 164, 73 Hun 575, 80 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 575, 57 N.Y. St. Rep. 270 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

PRATT, J.

This action was brought to annul the marriage between plaintiff and defendant on the grounds that the defendant, at the time of the marriage, was physically incapable of contracting marriage; that such incapacity was known to her, but unknown to him, and was fraudulently concealed from him by the defendant. The parties intermarried on July 14, 1890, and cohabited together until shortly before this action was commenced, in June, 1892,—a period of nearly two years. They had twins born to them in February, 1892, about seven months after their marriage, one of which died on the night of its birth; the other, about three months later. This would seem to dispose of the question of defendant's want of capacity, unless plaintiff expected her to have triplets.

As to the other grounds alleged by plaintiff, it is sufficient to say they were not proven,—neither the incurable defects, nor their fraudulent concealment; and, even if proven, we know of no rule of law that will enable a husband to annul the marriage contract on the. ground that his wife has a swollen tongue, or inflammation of the bladder. We are satisfied that the" court at special term made a proper disposition of the case, and that the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

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

PRATT, J.

This action was brought to annul the marriage between plaintiff and defendant on the grounds that the defendant, at the time of the marriage, was physically incapable of contracting marriage; that such incapacity was known to her, but unknown to him, and was fraudulently concealed from him by the defendant. The parties intermarried on July 14, 1890, and cohabited together until shortly before this action was commenced, in June, 1892,—a period of nearly two years. They had twins born to them in February, 1892, about seven months after their marriage, one of which died on the night of its birth; the other, about three months later. This would seem to dispose of the question of defendant's want of capacity, unless plaintiff expected her to have triplets.

As to the other grounds alleged by plaintiff, it is sufficient to say they were not proven,—neither the incurable defects, nor their fraudulent concealment; and, even if proven, we know of no rule of law that will enable a husband to annul the marriage contract on the. ground that his wife has a swollen tongue, or inflammation of the bladder. We are satisfied that the" court at special term made a proper disposition of the case, and that the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 N.Y.S. 164, 73 Hun 575, 80 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 575, 57 N.Y. St. Rep. 270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riley-v-riley-nysupct-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack