Wattman v. Wattman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wattman v. Wattman

242 A.D. 706

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

DecidedJuly 15, 1934

StatusPublished

This text of 242 A.D. 706 (Wattman v. Wattman) 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

Wattman v. Wattman, 242 A.D. 706 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Order reversed on the law and the facts and motion to punish for contempt denied. The record fails to show that the plaintiff, appellant, was served with an order to show cause upon which the injunction order was predicated. The record further shows that at the time the injunction order was served upon the appellant he had already obtained his decree of divorce in Nevada, and, therefore, did not violate the order restraining him from further proceeding with that divorce action. In view of this decision the appeals from the orders of January 3, 1934, July 17, 1933, and June 27, 1933, are dismissed. Young, Hagarty, Scudder and Davis, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., concurs in result, being of the opinion that appellant, when he procured a judgment of divorce in Nevada, did not know of the injunction in this action.

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

Order reversed on the law and the facts and motion to punish for contempt denied. The record fails to show that the plaintiff, appellant, was served with an order to show cause upon which the injunction order was predicated. The record further shows that at the time the injunction order was served upon the appellant he had already obtained his decree of divorce in Nevada, and, therefore, did not violate the order restraining him from further proceeding with that divorce action. In view of this decision the appeals from the orders of January 3, 1934, July 17, 1933, and June 27, 1933, are dismissed. Young, Hagarty, Scudder and Davis, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., concurs in result, being of the opinion that appellant, when he procured a judgment of divorce in Nevada, did not know of the injunction in this action.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D. 706, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wattman-v-wattman-nyappdiv-1934.