Stevens v. Peoples Bank of Hamburg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stevens v. Peoples Bank of Hamburg

246 A.D. 481, 284 N.Y.S. 929, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9518

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

DecidedJanuary 21, 1936

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 246 A.D. 481 (Stevens v. Peoples Bank of Hamburg) 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

Stevens v. Peoples Bank of Hamburg, 246 A.D. 481, 284 N.Y.S. 929, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9518 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The decedent Edward H. Draudt obtained a judgment under subdivision 5 of section 7 of the Domestic Relations Law (as amd. by chap. 537 of the Laws of 1929) declaring void his marriage to Nina S. Draudt. Pursuant to the terms of the statute mentioned, Edward H. Draudt furnished a bond with two sureties conditioned for certain payments for the care and maintenance of [482]*482Nina S. Draudt “ during the term of her life ” and in terms binding not only upon Edward H. Draudt and his sureties but upon “ our heirs, executors and administrators.” In an action brought after the death of Edward H. Draudt to enforce the bond a motion to dismiss the complaint as insufficient to hold the obligors for the support and maintenance of Nina S. Draudt after the death of her husband has been denied. The judgment referred to did not bring about an “ annulment ” of the marriage as that word is technically used in our Civil Practice Act. It avoided the marriage as completely as /would a judgment of absolute divorce. Section 87 of the Decedent Estate Law provides that, “ No distributive share of the estate of a decedent shall be allowed under the provisions of this article, either (a) to a spouse against whom or in whose favor a final decree or judgment of divorce recognized as valid by the law of this State has been rendered.” If it be assumed that this statute covers the status of Nina S. Draudt, it might furnish an added reason why this order should be affirmed, for Nina S. Draudt would thereby be before us with no property rights coming to her as a result of her former position as the wife of Edward. But we are not required to construe this statute for we find in the very language of the bond and of subdivision 5 of section 7 of the Domestic Relations Law our mandate to affirm the order appealed from. The statute says “ for her [the former wife’s] suitable care and maintenance during life.” What other life could be intended than that of the wife? And the bond, reading “ during the term of her life,” is even more definite, and it formally binds the estates of the obligors.

All concur. Present —■ Sears, P. J., Taylor, Thompson, Crosby and Lewis, JJ.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

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

Per Curiam.

The decedent Edward H. Draudt obtained a judgment under subdivision 5 of section 7 of the Domestic Relations Law (as amd. by chap. 537 of the Laws of 1929) declaring void his marriage to Nina S. Draudt. Pursuant to the terms of the statute mentioned, Edward H. Draudt furnished a bond with two sureties conditioned for certain payments for the care and maintenance of [482]*482Nina S. Draudt “ during the term of her life ” and in terms binding not only upon Edward H. Draudt and his sureties but upon “ our heirs, executors and administrators.” In an action brought after the death of Edward H. Draudt to enforce the bond a motion to dismiss the complaint as insufficient to hold the obligors for the support and maintenance of Nina S. Draudt after the death of her husband has been denied. The judgment referred to did not bring about an “ annulment ” of the marriage as that word is technically used in our Civil Practice Act. It avoided the marriage as completely as /would a judgment of absolute divorce. Section 87 of the Decedent Estate Law provides that, “ No distributive share of the estate of a decedent shall be allowed under the provisions of this article, either (a) to a spouse against whom or in whose favor a final decree or judgment of divorce recognized as valid by the law of this State has been rendered.” If it be assumed that this statute covers the status of Nina S. Draudt, it might furnish an added reason why this order should be affirmed, for Nina S. Draudt would thereby be before us with no property rights coming to her as a result of her former position as the wife of Edward. But we are not required to construe this statute for we find in the very language of the bond and of subdivision 5 of section 7 of the Domestic Relations Law our mandate to affirm the order appealed from. The statute says “ for her [the former wife’s] suitable care and maintenance during life.” What other life could be intended than that of the wife? And the bond, reading “ during the term of her life,” is even more definite, and it formally binds the estates of the obligors.

All concur. Present —■ Sears, P. J., Taylor, Thompson, Crosby and Lewis, JJ.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 A.D. 481, 284 N.Y.S. 929, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stevens-v-peoples-bank-of-hamburg-nyappdiv-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack