From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Russell v. Russell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 1, 1924
211 App. Div. 843 (N.Y. App. Div. 1924)

Summary

In Russell v. Russell, as in the case sub judice, the charge was adultery with a man unknown, in consequence of which adultery the wife gave birth to a child of which the husband declared he was not the father.

Summary of this case from Loudon v. Loudon

Opinion

December, 1924.

Present — Clarke, P.J., Dowling, Finch, McAvoy and Martin, JJ.


Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with ten dollars costs.


Summaries of

Russell v. Russell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 1, 1924
211 App. Div. 843 (N.Y. App. Div. 1924)

In Russell v. Russell, as in the case sub judice, the charge was adultery with a man unknown, in consequence of which adultery the wife gave birth to a child of which the husband declared he was not the father.

Summary of this case from Loudon v. Loudon

In Russell v. Russell, supra, the Earl of Birkenhead, Viscount Finlay and Lord Dunedin, with Lords Sumner and Carson dissenting, reversed the court below, the court of appeal, which, in turn, had sustained the trial court, and decided that the evidence of the husband of non-access was not admissible in a divorce case.

Summary of this case from Loudon v. Loudon
Case details for

Russell v. Russell

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM F. RUSSELL, Appellant, v. NETTIE B. RUSSELL, Respondent

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

Date published: Dec 1, 1924

Citations

211 App. Div. 843 (N.Y. App. Div. 1924)

Citing Cases

Loudon v. Loudon

In this case of Wallace v. Wallace, Vice-Chancellor Bergen admitted, apparently without objection, the…

Dayhoff v. State

It was further said in that case: "It has been said elsewhere that the rule is not limited to any special…