Van Cleaf v. Burns

New York Supreme Court

Van Cleaf v. Burns

16 N.Y.S. 667, 69 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 250, 42 N.Y. St. Rep. 26, 62 Hun 250, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2162

DecidedDecember 14, 1891

StatusPublished

This text of 16 N.Y.S. 667 (Van Cleaf v. Burns) 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

Van Cleaf v. Burns, 16 N.Y.S. 667, 69 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 250, 42 N.Y. St. Rep. 26, 62 Hun 250, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2162 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Dykman, J.

We think this judgment in favor of the plaintiff should be reversed. By the case as it is now presented, it expressly appears that the judgment of divorce granted by the court in the state of Illinois has the effect to deprive the plaintiff of dower in that state, and the case is thus free from the decision of the court of appeals. In the opinion of that court it was said: “Ho misconduct, other than adultery, is here permitted to deprive a wife of existing dower-rights, even if it be the basis of a judgment of divorce lawfully rendered in another state, unless it expressly appears that such judgment has that effect in the jurisdiction where it was rendered, and as to that we express no opinion.” 23 N. E. Rep. 881. As, therefore, the judgment of divorce has the effect to deprive the plaintiff of dower in the state of Illinois, the jurisdiction where the judgment was rendered, we think it should be permitted the same operatibn in this state. The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. All concur.

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

Dykman, J.

We think this judgment in favor of the plaintiff should be reversed. By the case as it is now presented, it expressly appears that the judgment of divorce granted by the court in the state of Illinois has the effect to deprive the plaintiff of dower in that state, and the case is thus free from the decision of the court of appeals. In the opinion of that court it was said: “Ho misconduct, other than adultery, is here permitted to deprive a wife of existing dower-rights, even if it be the basis of a judgment of divorce lawfully rendered in another state, unless it expressly appears that such judgment has that effect in the jurisdiction where it was rendered, and as to that we express no opinion.” 23 N. E. Rep. 881. As, therefore, the judgment of divorce has the effect to deprive the plaintiff of dower in the state of Illinois, the jurisdiction where the judgment was rendered, we think it should be permitted the same operatibn in this state. The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 N.Y.S. 667, 69 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 250, 42 N.Y. St. Rep. 26, 62 Hun 250, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-cleaf-v-burns-nysupct-1891.