§
In the Matter of F

6 Cited authorities

  1. Lieng v. Quia

    228 U.S. 335 (1913)   Cited 6 times
    In Sy Joc Lieng et al. v. Sy Quia et al., 228 U.S. 335, 33 S.Ct. 514, 515, 57 L.Ed. 862, a person who claimed to be offspring of a marriage consummated in 1847 attacked a subsequent marriage consummated in 1853, which latter marriage continued until 1894 when dissolved by death of one of the parties.

  2. Derrell v. United States

    82 F. Supp. 18 (E.D. Mo. 1949)   Cited 3 times

    No. 5569. January 12, 1949. Paul H. Koenig and Edward W. Fredrickson, both of St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiff. Drake Watson, U.S. Atty., of New London, Mo., and William V. O'Donnell, Asst. U.S. Atty., of St. Louis, Mo., for defendant. Donald Gunn, of St. Louis, Mo., for third-party defendant Mrs. Bytha Hooker Rhodes. Olan R. Van Zandt, of Sherman, Tex., and Thompson, Mitchell, Thompson Young, and Harold I. Elbert, all of St. Louis, Mo., for third-party defendant Mrs. Bessie Boucher. Roberts P. Elam

  3. People v. Kay

    141 Misc. 574 (N.Y. Mag. Ct. 1931)   Cited 13 times
    In People v Kay (141 Misc. 574), a 1931 Magistrate's Court proceeding, Kay asserted the invalidity of a purported second "marriage" as a defense to the charge of being a disorderly person by reason of his abandonment of his "wife" and his failure to support her. Complainant alleged that Kay "married" her in Turkey.

  4. Matter of Conklin v. Tuttle

    184 N.E. 136 (N.Y. 1932)   Cited 10 times

    Submitted November 21, 1932 Decided December 6, 1932 Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. David S. Murden for appellant. Douglas Macduff for respondent. Order affirmed, with costs payable out of the estate. Question certified answered in the affirmative. No opinion. Concur: CRANE, LEHMAN, KELLOGG, O'BRIEN, HUBBS and CROUCH, JJ. Dissenting: POUND, Ch. J.

  5. Fagin v. Fagin

    88 Misc. 304 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1914)   Cited 4 times

    December, 1914. Isaac Siegmeister, for plaintiff. Joseph H. Rose, for defendant. KAPPER, J. The plaintiff seeks to annul his marriage to the defendant upon the ground that her former husband was living at the time. He has proven some facts, chiefly by way of admissions by the defendant, from which it might be found that the defendant had been previously married in Russia, but when was not made to appear. Beyond that proof the plaintiff does not go. He neither proves the existence of the former husband

  6. Alixanian v. Alixanian

    28 Misc. 638 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1899)   Cited 2 times

    August, 1899. Campbell Hance (H.H. Walker, of counsel), for plaintiff. A.V. Campbell, for defendant. RUSSELL, J. The plaintiff is entitled to a separation from the defendant if she was his lawful wife, for his abandonment of her is in law a desertion in case he owed her the obligations due from a husband to a wife. A lawful ceremony of marriage was performed between the parties, and the question to be solved is as to the right of the plaintiff to marry at the time the ceremony was performed. At that