Shannon v. Shannon

247 A.D. 790
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 15, 1936
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 247 A.D. 790 (Shannon v. Shannon) 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
Shannon v. Shannon, 247 A.D. 790 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Opinions

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered in the Kings county clerk’s office on November 1, 1935, dismissing the complaint on the merits, after trial at Special Term, upon default of defendant in appearance and answer or motion.

Action for divorce. Judgment in the form of a so-called order ” dismissing the complaint reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, and judgment directed for the plaintiff for the relief demanded in the complaint. Findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance herewith will be made. The defendant defaulted and the plaintiff, upon adequate proof, was denied judgment on the theory that according judgment to him involved an attack by him on the validity of a prior divorce procured in Mexico. The Mexican proceedings were based on the consent of both.the plaintiff and the defendant under circumstances that rendered the decree wholly void. The relief which plaintiff seeks in this action is not inconsistent with his position in the void Mexican proceedings. His procedure herein involves no attack on the prior invalid decree. He seeks no advantage from the Mexican proceedings based on a position contradictory to his acts in that proceeding — nothing to the disadvantage of the wife or her estate; therefore, he is not estopped to seek a dissolution of the marriage status on grounds recognized in this State. A different situation would exist if he were taking an inconsistent position and seeking to gain an advantage from the change of position, such as was the situation in Starbuck v. Starbuck (173 N. Y. 503) and similar cases. Hence the rule in that case should not be applied here. This view will not offend our public policy and will enable the wife to take steps to put her present status on a firm and lawful basis. Lazansky, P. J., Young and Carswell, JJ., concur; Hagarty, J., with whom Davis, J., concurs, dissents and writes for affirmance. Settle order on notice.

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

Related

Tantleff v. Tantleff
60 Misc. 2d 608 (New York Supreme Court, 1969)
Sues v. Sues
11 Misc. 2d 724 (New York Supreme Court, 1958)
Marcus v. Marcus
194 Misc. 464 (New York Supreme Court, 1949)
Hamm v. Hamm
204 S.W.2d 113 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1947)
Garman v. Garman
102 F.2d 272 (D.C. Circuit, 1939)
McDermott v. McDermott
252 A.D. 875 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1937)
May v. May
251 A.D. 63 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1937)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
247 A.D. 790, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shannon-v-shannon-nyappdiv-1936.