¶1Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Thomas, Mills and Putnam, JJ., concurred; Jenks, P. J., dissented upon the ground that the proof does not establish a ease within the rule of Kennedy v. Kennedy (73 N. Y. 369); Barber v. Barber (168 App. Div. 212), and Donohue v. Donohue (180 id. 561), with whom Blackmar, J., concurred.
184 A.D. 949
Lundquist v. Lundquist
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided June 15, 1918
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · decided 1918-06-15
Relies on Kennedy v. . Kennedy
Decided 1918-06-15