Lundquist v. Lundquist

Judgment 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.