From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

King v. King

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jan 1, 1917
176 App. Div. 940 (N.Y. App. Div. 1917)

Opinion

January, 1917.


Interlocutory judgment and order affirmed, without costs. All concurred, except Kruse, P.J., who dissented in a memorandum; Lambert, J., not sitting.


1. I cannot say that the evidence does not prove the defendant's misconduct, although there are strong circumstances indicating that it was brought about by procurement and connivance of persons acting on the plaintiff's behalf. 2. The facts actually found by the trial judge and the evidence in support thereof not only permit, but, as I think, require, a finding that the defendant's misconduct was condoned by the plaintiff. He may not have intended that what he did and consented to should have that effect, but such, I think, was the legal effect thereof.


Summaries of

King v. King

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jan 1, 1917
176 App. Div. 940 (N.Y. App. Div. 1917)
Case details for

King v. King

Case Details

Full title:JAMES E. KING, Respondent, v. ROSE A. KING, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Jan 1, 1917

Citations

176 App. Div. 940 (N.Y. App. Div. 1917)

Citing Cases

Birnbaum v. U.S.

In re Ryan's Estate, 115 Misc. 472, 188 N.Y.S. 387 (Sur.Ct. 1921); Estate of Hemingway v. Random House, Inc.,…

Wilson v. Piper Aircraft

Moreover, ORS 7.120(2), appears to allow return of exhibits without restrictions as a discretionary matter.…