¶1We think this judgment in favor of the plaintiff should be reversed. By the case as it is now presented, it expressly appears that the judgment of divorce granted by the court in the state of Illinois has the effect to deprive the plaintiff of dower in that state, and the case is thus free from the decision of the court of appeals. In the opinion of that court it was said: “Ho misconduct, other than adultery, is here permitted to deprive a wife of existing dower-rights, even if it be the basis of a judgment of divorce lawfully rendered in another state, unless it expressly appears that such judgment has that effect in the jurisdiction where it was rendered, and as to that we express no opinion.” 23 N. E. Rep. 881. As, therefore, the judgment of divorce has the effect to deprive the plaintiff of dower in the state of Illinois, the jurisdiction where the judgment was rendered, we think it should be permitted the same operatibn in this state. The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. All concur.
16 N.Y.S. 667
Van Cleaf v. Burns
Decided December 14, 1891
New York Supreme Court · decided 1891-12-14
Action by Mary B. Van Cleaf against Catharine Burns and others for dower. Defendants appeal from a judgment for plaintiff. Reversed. The action was brought for dower of lands in Kings county. The defense was that the right to dower was barred by a judgment of absolute divorce obtained in Illinois by the husband of plaintiff against her for her misconduct. The case was twice tried.
Decided 1891-12-14