Aymar v. Roff

Decided October 10, 1817

New York Court of Chancery · decided 1817-10-10

THE bill stated that the plaintiff, Eliza A. the infant, was the daughter of Peter A. and under 13 years of age. That in August last, the infant, with her mother, went from the city of New-York to Staten Island, and boarded with Mrs, Roff. That the infant there became acquainted with the defendant son of Mrs. Roff, who was about 33 or 34 years of age. That on the 37th of September last, the defendant proposed to the infant to go to a minister and be married.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1817-10-10

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently June 1933

3 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The following order was made by the court

¶2“Oh reading the bill, and on motion of Mr. D. S. Jones, of counsel for the plaintiffs, and the said infant being examined in court, and repeating the same declaration r Ordered, that the said Eliza Arm Aymar be pla' ced under the protection of this court, as. a ward thereof, and that the defendant refrain from holding any conversa*51tion¿ or from having any intercourse- or correspondence with the said Eliza, so long as this order remains in force, under the pain of incurring a contempt.”

¶3N. B. No further order was asked for in this case, so that nothing further was done, in the first instance. It appears, however, from the cases referred to in Eyre v. Countess of Shaftsbury, (2 P. Wms. 111, 112.) that the parson and all other agents concerned in the marriage of infants, without the consent of their guardians have been committed.