Case Name: Edward A. Anderson, Respondent, v. Anna Anderson, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1893-12
Citations: 81 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 56
Docket Number: 
Parties: Edward A. Anderson, Respondent, v. Anna Anderson, Appellant.
Judges: Dykman, J., concurred.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 81
Pages: 56–57

Head Matter:
Edward A. Anderson, Respondent, v. Anna Anderson, Appellant.
Action to annul a marriage — evidence necessary to justify a reversal of a judgment.
Where an appeal is taken upon questions of fact only from a judgment annulling a marriage contract on tlie ground that it was procured by duress, a very strong preponderance of evidence against the decision of the trial justice is required to justify a reversal.
Appeal by tlie defendant, Anna Anderson, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 17th day of February, 1893, •upon a decision of the court rendered after a trial at the Kings County Special Term, declaring the marriage between the plaintiff and defendant void, and annulling the same, and freeing the parties from the obligations of the marriage with each other.
, This action was brought for tlie purpose of annulling and declaring void the marriage contract between tlie parties, and freeing them from the obligations thereof.
The complaint alleged “that the consent of the plaintiff was obtained to the said marriage by force and duress, in that the said plaintiff w^as made to believe that if he did not marry the said defendant the brother of said defendant would shoot and kill him, the said plaintiff, and that serious violence would be committed upon him by defendant’s father; and the said defendant’s brother threatened to kill said plaintiff if he did not marry the defendant, which threats were made with the knowledge and concurrence of the defendant. That in the fear that said threats would be carried out, and that plaintiff would be killed or grievously wounded and hurt if he did not, he, the said plaintiff, married the defendant to avoid such hurt or death.
“ Said plaintiff and defendant have never since the said marriage cohabited together as husband and wife.”
Wm. J. Carr, for the appellant.
Chas. J., Patterson, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Pratt, J.:
The only questions being of fact, and the trial judge having seen the witness and personally heard the testimony, a very strong pre ponderance of evidence against the decision would be required to enable us to interfere upon appeal.
We do not think it can be said that the judgment is unsupported by any testimony.
The trial judge believed the evidence of the plaintiff, and we cannot say that he was wrong in so doing.
The judgment does not reflect upon the defendant, who was not a party to the duress.
lTlie judgment must be affirmed, without costs.
Dykman, J., concurred.