Groh v. Groh

Decided June 15, 1901

New York Supreme Court · decided 1901-06-15

<p>Divorce — Motion, to vacate judgment after death of plaintiff — Remedy. Where the plaintiff in an action for absolute divorce dies after judgment has been rendered in his favor, the defendant cannot move, in the action, to vacate the judgment on the ground that it was im- ■ properly obtained.</p> <p>. To that end she must bring a separate action against all -the heirs- and other persons interested in the plaintiff’s real estate, grantees thereof subsequent to the judgment, and his personal representatives.</p>

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently July 1943

2 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1901-06-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Gildersleeve, J.

¶1The plaintiff, John Groh, obtained a judgment of absolute divorce against the defendant, Susie O. Groh, in February, 1899. In March, 1900, the plaintiff died. The defendant now,' after the lapse of more than a year from the death of plaintiff, makes a motion to set aside the judgment of divorce on the ground that said judgment was improperly obtained. I do not think this is the proper method of procedure. It seems to me, upon the authority of Watson v. Watson, 1 Hun, 267, that a separate action should have been brought against all the heirs and other persons interested in the real estate left by the plaintiff and such persons as may have taken conveyance thereof subsequent to the decree of divorce, as well as against the representatives of the deceased plaintiff. Motion denied, without costs and without prejudice.

¶2Motion denied, without costs and without prejudiced