Thompson v. Thompson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thompson v. Thompson

178 A.D. 610, 165 N.Y.S. 892, 1917 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6556

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

DecidedJune 8, 1917

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 178 A.D. 610 (Thompson v. Thompson) 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

Thompson v. Thompson, 178 A.D. 610, 165 N.Y.S. 892, 1917 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6556 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The plaintiff, divorced from her husband in the State of Pennsylvania, would enforce specific performance of an agreement made after the parties separated and before the divorce, whereby the defendant agreed to pay her for her life or until her remarriage a sum of money measured by his . income, but never less than $75 per month, or if his income became less than $2,700, then one-third of his income. The court will not enforce specific performance merely to save a multiplicity of suits (Town of Venice v. Woodruff, 62 N. Y. 462, 470), or because the defendant’s exempt property cannot be taken on execution or to enforce an agreement such as that in question. (McGean v. Parsons, 150 App. Div. 208; Buttlar v. Buttlar, 57 N. J. Eq. 645.) It is no longer necessary to resort to equity, as the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law. (Winter v. Winter, 191 N. Y. 462.) So far as Fleming v. Peterson (167 Ill. 465) tends to sustain appellant’s view, it is not approved.

; The order is affirmed, without costs.

Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Stapleton, Mills and Rich, JJ., concurred.

' Order affirmed, without costs.

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

Per Curiam:

The plaintiff, divorced from her husband in the State of Pennsylvania, would enforce specific performance of an agreement made after the parties separated and before the divorce, whereby the defendant agreed to pay her for her life or until her remarriage a sum of money measured by his . income, but never less than $75 per month, or if his income became less than $2,700, then one-third of his income. The court will not enforce specific performance merely to save a multiplicity of suits (Town of Venice v. Woodruff, 62 N. Y. 462, 470), or because the defendant’s exempt property cannot be taken on execution or to enforce an agreement such as that in question. (McGean v. Parsons, 150 App. Div. 208; Buttlar v. Buttlar, 57 N. J. Eq. 645.) It is no longer necessary to resort to equity, as the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law. (Winter v. Winter, 191 N. Y. 462.) So far as Fleming v. Peterson (167 Ill. 465) tends to sustain appellant’s view, it is not approved.

; The order is affirmed, without costs.

Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Stapleton, Mills and Rich, JJ., concurred.

' Order affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 A.D. 610, 165 N.Y.S. 892, 1917 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-thompson-nyappdiv-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack