Thalman v. Thalman

New York Supreme Court

Thalman v. Thalman

36 N.Y.S. 1134, 98 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 644, 70 N.Y. St. Rep. 911

DecidedDecember 18, 1895

StatusPublished

This text of 36 N.Y.S. 1134 (Thalman v. Thalman) 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

Thalman v. Thalman, 36 N.Y.S. 1134, 98 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 644, 70 N.Y. St. Rep. 911 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This action was brought to obtain a decree of separation, and was defended on the ground that the plaintiff and defendant are not, and never have been, husband and wife. The trial court so found, and dismissed the complaint. The plaintiff did not claim that a marriage ceremony had been solemnized by minister, priest, or magistrate, but that a verbal marriage contract was entered into between the plaintiff and defendant on the 30th day of April, 1892; and the only question presented on this appeal is whether the finding by the trial court that there was no such contract is against the weight of evidence. An attentive examination of the evidence satisfies us that, under the rules which govern this coxirt in reviewing questions of fact, the finding of the special term must stand. As no good purpose can be accomplished by á discussion of the evidence, we refrain from doing it. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

This action was brought to obtain a decree of separation, and was defended on the ground that the plaintiff and defendant are not, and never have been, husband and wife. The trial court so found, and dismissed the complaint. The plaintiff did not claim that a marriage ceremony had been solemnized by minister, priest, or magistrate, but that a verbal marriage contract was entered into between the plaintiff and defendant on the 30th day of April, 1892; and the only question presented on this appeal is whether the finding by the trial court that there was no such contract is against the weight of evidence. An attentive examination of the evidence satisfies us that, under the rules which govern this coxirt in reviewing questions of fact, the finding of the special term must stand. As no good purpose can be accomplished by á discussion of the evidence, we refrain from doing it. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 N.Y.S. 1134, 98 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 644, 70 N.Y. St. Rep. 911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thalman-v-thalman-nysupct-1895.