Home/New York Court of Appeals/Severance v. Severance

Severance v. Severance

183 N.E. 909, 260 N.Y. 432, 1933 N.Y. LEXIS 775
New York Court of Appeals·Decided January 10, 1933·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The provision of the final judgment of divorce “ directing payments of money for the support of the plaintiff ” (Civ. Pr. Act, § 1159) should be stricken out, the plaintiff having remarried, but without prejudice to the right of the plaintiff to seek relief under the provisions of the contract of December 12,1925. We express no opinion as to her right to support under such contract.

The order should be modified in accordance with this opinion and as so modified affirmed, without costs.

Pound, Ch. J., Crane, Lehman, Kellogg, O’Brien, ILubbs and Crouch, JJ., concur.

Ordered accordingly.

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

Severance v. Severance, 183 N.E. 909, 260 N.Y. 432, 1933 N.Y. LEXIS 775 (N.Y. 1933).

183 N.E. 909 (Severance v. Severance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Burns v. Burns
56 Misc. 3d 864 (New York Supreme Court, 2017)
McMains v. McMains
206 N.E.2d 185 (New York Court of Appeals, 1965)
Reichel v. Sollazzo
38 Misc. 2d 217 (New York Supreme Court, 1963)
Gush v. Gush
13 Misc. 2d 1014 (New York Supreme Court, 1958)
Howland v. Stitzer
72 S.E.2d 583 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1952)
In re the Accounting of Van Arsdale
190 Misc. 968 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1947)
Wersinger v. Cook
187 Misc. 1059 (New York Supreme Court, 1946)
Helvering v. Leonard
310 U.S. 80 (Supreme Court, 1940)
Goldman v. Goldman
26 N.E.2d 265 (New York Court of Appeals, 1940)