Opinion
March, 1923.
Present — Kelly, P.J., Jaycox, Kelby, Young and Kapper, JJ.
The story of the plaintiff that she believed it necessary to get a plain gold ring as an incident to obtaining a marriage license, and her story that she believed the actual civil marriage ceremony, which undoubtedly took place, to be only a part of the formalities incident to obtaining a marriage license, are rejected by this court as incredible. Findings 12, 13, 14, 15, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 44, 46, 47, 48, and conclusions of law 2, 7 and 8 are, therefore, reversed as contrary to the evidence. The remaining findings that a civil marriage took place between the parties upon the distinct false representation by the defendant that it would be followed by a marriage according to the Jewish rite, are affirmed; and the 3d proposed finding by the defendant is found. With the findings thus modified, the interlocutory judgment is unanimously affirmed, with costs, on the authority of Watkins v. Watkins ( 197 App. Div. 489).