217 A.2d 481 | Conn. Super. Ct. | 1966
Plaintiff's decedent, Hille Perlstein, instituted this action praying for an annulment of an alleged bigamous marriage to the defendant. On January 29, 1965, Hille Perlstein died, and on April 30, 1965, Emma P. Cohen, as executrix of the estate of Hille Perlstein, was substituted as plaintiff. On May 1, 1965, the complaint was amended by adding a paragraph which set forth the death of Hille Perlstein and the appointment of the plaintiff as executrix of his estate. The defendant now files a motion *258 to erase the cause from the docket, claiming (1) that the court no longer has jurisdiction, or (2) that the court should no longer exercise jurisdiction.
A motion to erase questions the power of the court to hear and determine the cause of action presented to it. It will be granted only when it clearly appears on the face of the record that the court is without jurisdiction. Brown v. Cato,
Jurisdiction must exist in three particulars: the subject matter of the cause, the parties, and the process. Mazzei v. Cantales,
The defendant further contends that, despite the survival statute, whether or not the present action abates depends on whether a bigamous marriage is void or voidable, her point being that actions to annul voidable marriages abate with the death of one of the spouses. Assuming the soundness of her position, the defendant gains nothing from this contention. A bigamous marriage is not merely voidable; it is void. Bombard v. Bombard,
A divorce action seeks relief which is equitable in nature. German v. German,
The motion to erase is accordingly denied.