
    Gregorio Di Lorenzo, Plaintiff, v. Johanna Di Lorenzo, Defendant.
    (Supreme Court, Kings Special Term for Trials,
    May, 1901.)
    Annulment of marriage for fraud — Palming a substituted child upon one as an inducement to Mm to marry its alleged mother — Code C. P., § 1743, subd. 4.
    
      An action to annul a marriage, upon the ground that the consent of one of the parties was obtained by fraud, will lie where the husband proves that his wife induced him to marry her by falsely representing to him that she had borne him a child, then living, and by palming upon him as his a child which was neither his nor hers.
    Frauds which go to the essence of the marriage contract are to be rated in the same manner as other frauds respecting contracts.
    Action to annul a marriage on the ground of fraud.
    Byron Traver for plaintiff.
    Greenthal & Greenthal for defendant.
   Gaynor, J.

The verdict of the jury establishes that the defendant induced the plaintiff to marry her by .falsely and fraudulently representing to him and causing him to believe that she had given birth to a child of which he was the father, and that it was then living, whereas she had borne no child at all, but palmed off a false child on him. This was obtaining his consent to the marriage by fraud within subdivision 4 of section 1743 of the 0ode of Civil Procedure. It seems to me that the intention of our law is to rate frauds which go to the essence of the marriage contract and relation the same as frauds in general in respect of contracts (Scott v. Shufeldt, 5 Paige, 43; Moot v. Moot, 37 Hun, 288; Keyes v. Keyes, 6 Misc. Rep. 355; King v. Brewer, 8 Misc. Rep. 587; Kujek v. Goldman, 150 N. Y. 176; Donovan v. Donovan, 9 Allen, 140).

Judgment for the plaintiff.  