Katherine was born on 1848 in Villmar an der Lahn, Hesse, Germany. Her birth year of 1848 was calculated from her 16 October 1931 date of death at age 83. [The Green-Wood Cemetery Burial Transcipt].
1,2,3,4 Katherine (Kate) Stillger married
Adolf Von Buren, son of
Philip von Buren and
Kathrina Scherrer, on 26 September 1875 in Brooklyn, Kings County, New York. According to the 1930 census, she was 84 years old and first married at age 30, which would have been in about 1876.
2,2 Katherine (Kate) von Buren and Adolf Von Buren were divorced on 27 March 1885 in Manhattan, New York County, New York.
1/26/2010 – Transcribed from the Court File by Paul B. Van Buren
Adolf Von Buren vs. Catharine Von Buren
File: 1885 #1018
Supreme Court of New York
City and County of New York
Complaint
Supreme Court of the State of New York
Adolf Von Buren
vs.
Catharina Von Buren
The plaintiff complaining of the above named defendant alleges upon information and belief.
I. That on the 26
th day of September 1875 at the city of Brooklyn, he was married to the defendant.
II. That plaintiff and defendant were at the commencement of this action and still are actual inhabitants of this state.
III. That in the month of July 1880 the defendant committed adultery with one
Wilhelm Van Buren.
IV. That at divers places and at various times between the month of July 1880 and this action, but at what particular times and places, the plaintiff is unable to state, the defendant has committed adultery with various other men, the names of which are at present unknown to this plaintiff.
V. That such adultery was committed without the consent, connivance, privity or procurement of the plaintiff, that five years have not elapsed since the plaintiff discovered the facts of such adultery, and that the plaintiff has not voluntarily cohabited with the defendant.
VI. That the issue of said marriage are three children, respectively:
Hedwig Catharina, age 7 years
Laura Catharina, age 5 years
Johan Gustav Adolf, age 3 years
Wherefore plaintiff demands judgment that the bonds of matrimony between himself and defendant be dissolved and that the children be awarded to the plaintiff.
Robert Greenthal
Atty for plaintiff
269 West 36 St.
N.Y. City
Filed: March 10, 1884
County Clerk
New York City
City and County of New York,
ss: Adolf Von Buren, being duly sworn, says that he is the plaintiff in this action, and that the foregoing Complaint is true to the knowledge of the deponent except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and that as to those matters he believes it to true.
Adolph Von Buren
Sworn to before me this 11
th day of February 1884
Stephen Whitehorn
Commissioner of Deeds
----------------------------------------------------
Summons
Adolf Von Buren,
Plaintiff
vs.
Catharina Von Buren,
Defendant
To the above named Defendant.
You are hereby Summoned to answer the complaint in this action, and to serve a copy of your answer on the Plaintiff’s Attorney within twenty days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service, and in case of your failure to appear, or answer, Judgment will be taken against you by default, for the relief demanded in the complaint.
Dated: New York, February 11, 1884
Robert Greenthal, Plaintiff’s Attorney
Office Address, No. 269 West 36
th Street
N.Y. City
__________________________________
Proof of Service
N.Y. SUPPREME COURT
Adolf Von Buren
vs.
Catherine Von Buren
City and County of New York
William Green, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is over 21 years of age and resides at No. 269 West 36
St., this city, that he knows both the plaintiff and the defendant in this action and that on the 16
th day of February 1884 the deponent served the summons and complaint in this action on the defendant Catharine Von Buren by delivering to and leaving with the said defendant Catharine Von Buren a true copy of the annexed Summons and Complaint in this action at No. 145 23
rd Street in the City of Brooklyn, State of New York.
Deponent further says that he is well acquainted with said Catharine Von Buren, the defendant in this action, and knows the person on whom he served the copy of the annexed Summons and Complaint to be the defendant in this action, and that he acquired his knowledge of the said defendant Catharine Von Buren from knowing her living with the plaintiff as his wife in the city of Brooklyn in this State of New York at no. 712 Fifth Ave. and also at no. 378 Hamilton Ave. in the city of Brooklyn, State of New York, during the years 1879, 1880 and 1881, where they introduced themselves as husband and wife, and were generally known as such, and that he has be acquainted with the plaintiff and the defendant for several years.
William Green
Sworn to before me this 10
th day of March, 1884
(Illegible signature)
-------------------------------------------------
Affidavit of Default
Adolf Von Buren
vs.
Catherine Von Buren
City and County of New York
Robert Greenthal, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the plaintiff’s attorney herein, that the Summons and Complaint in this action was served on the defendant on the 16
th day of February 1884, and that no notice of appearance, answer or demurrer was served upon deponent, and that the time in which to serve the same has passed.
Robert Greenthal
Sworn to before me this 10th day of March 1884
Montague L. Marks
Notary Public, NY County
_____________________________
Referral to Referee
At a special term of the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the City and County of New York held at the new County Court House at the city of New York on the 10
th day of March 1884.
Present: Honorable Abraham R. Lawrence, Justice
Adolf Von Buren
vs.
Catharine Von Buren
On the Summons and Complaint in this action with due proof of the personal service of copies of the same on the defendant Catharine Von Buren in the city of Brooklyn in the State of New York, together with the affidavit of the plaintiff’s Attorney, that defendant’s time to answer has expired herein, and that no notice of appearance, answer or demurrer has been served herein, it is hereby
Ordered: that is action be and the same hereby is referred to Edward Holland Nicoll, Esq., to take proof of all the material allegations in the complaint in this action together with proof of personal service of the Summons and Complaint in this action on the defendant Catharine Von Buren, and to report the same to this Court with his opinion thereon.
Enter, ARL [Judge’s initials]
---------------------------------------------
Amended Answer
Supreme Court
City and County of New York
Adolph Von Buren
against )
Catherine Von Buren
The above named defendant Catherine Von Buren for her Amended Answer in this action respectfully shows to this Court:
That she admits that she was married to the plaintiff on the 26
th day of September 1875 at the City of Brooklyn and that the plaintiff and defendant were at the commencement of this action and still are actual inhabitants of this State.
And she further admits that the issue of said marriage are the three children named in the Complaint in this action to wit: Hedwig Catharina, Laura and John Gustav Adolph.
And she denies each and every other allegation set forth in said Complaint.
And the defendant further shows upon information and belief that in the month of September 1878, the plaintiff committed adultery with a woman whose name is unknown to the defendant at a Hotel on the Bowery just opposite the Atlantic Garden between Hester Street and Chatham Square in the City of New York, County and State of New York.
And the defendant further shows upon information and belief that about six weeks after the last named date at number 163 Christie Street in the said City of New York, the plaintiff committed adultery with another woman whose name is unknown to the defendant.
And the defendant further shows upon information and belief that about two weeks after the last named date at number 163 Christie Street aforesaid the plaintiff committed adultery with the same woman set forth in paragraph V of this Amended Answer.
And that the defendant further shows upon information and belief that at divers times and places between the month of September 1875 and the commencement of this action, the particulars of which the defendant is unable to state, the plaintiff has committed adultery with sundry women whose names are unknown to this defendant.
And the defendant further shows the several acts of adultery hereinbefore more particularly set forth in paragraphs from IV to VII, both inclusive, of this Amended Answer were committed by the plaintiff without the consent, connivance, privity or procurement of the defendant; that five years have not elapsed since the defendant discovered the facts of such adultery; and that the defendant has not voluntarily cohabited with the plaintiff since such discovery.
And the defendant further alleges and shows that this defendant is in necessitous circumstances and unable to support and care for the said children, the issue of her said marriage with the plaintiff; that the plaintiff has and is possessed of money and property as a skilled workman or mechanic from which he derives a very considerable income, amounting to nearly, if not over, one thousand dollars per annum or over twenty dollars per week, as the defendant is informed and believes.
Wherefore this defendant prays judgment or decree in this action dismissing the plaintiff’s said complaint with her costs and disbursements; that the bonds of matrimony between the plaintiff and defendant be dissolved and this defendant freed from the obligations thereof; that a reasonable provision for the support of the defendant and the care, education, support and maintenance of the said three children, the issue of said marriage, be made out of the income and property of the plaintiff; that the defendant in whose custody they now are be awarded the custody of the said children; and that the defendant may have such other order, judgment or decree in the premises as may be just and proper.
A.B. Chalmers
Attorney for the defendant
117 Nassau Street
New York City
City of New York, County of New York
ss:
Catherina Von Buren, being duly sworn, says that she is the defendant in the above entitled action, that she has heard read the foregoing Amended Answer and knows the contents thereof; and that the same is true of her own knowledge except as to the matters therein alleged on information and belief, and at as to those matters she believes it to be true.
(Signed) Katherina V. Buren
Sworn to before me this 4
th day of September 1884
Willard R. Jones
Notary Public
N.Y. City
____________________________________
Reply
N.Y Supreme Court
Adolph Von Buren
vs.
Catharine Von Buren
The plaintiff, for a reply to the Amended Answer of the defendant in this action, avers as follows:
He denies the allegations contain in the IV, V, VI, VII, VIII and IX paragraphs of said Answer and each and every part thereof.
Robert Greenthal
Plaintiff’’s Atty
18 Centre St.
NYC
________________________________________
Report of Referee
N.Y. SUPPREME COURT
City and County of New York
_____________________________
Adolf Von Buren
against
Catherine Von Buren
-------------------------------------------------
TO THE SUPREME COURT:--
I, EDWARD HOLLAND NICOLL, to whom by an order of this Court made herein on the 29 [sic, originally 10th] day of March, 1884, and by a further order of this Court made herein on the 15
th day of January, 1885, all the issues in this action were referred to hear and determine the same, do respectfully report to the Court:
That I have been attended by the respective parties to this action and by Mr. Robert Greenthal, attorney and of counsel for the plaintiff, and by Mr. A. Burr Chalmers, attorney and of counsel for the defendant, and that after hearing their allegations and proofs, I do find as matters of fact:
That on the 26
th day of September, 1875, at the City of Brooklyn, in the State of New York, the plaintiff and the defendant were married. That the plaintiff and defendant were, at the time of such marriage, actual inhabitants of the State of New York. That the plaintiffs and defendant were, at the time of the commencement of this action, actual inhabitants of the State of New York.
That in the month of July, 1880, the defendant,
Catherine Von Buren committed adultery with one Wilhelm Von Buren, at the City of Brooklyn, in said State of New York.
That in the month of May, 1881, the said defendant
Catherine Von Buren, on two separate occasions, committed adultery with one Adolf Scherrer, at the said city of Brooklyn, in said State of New York.
[Note: Her son was apparently born on 2 June 1881.]
That the said adultery was committed without the consent, connivance, privity, or procurement of the plaintiff.
That five years have not elapsed since the plaintiff discovered the fact of such adultery.
That the plaintiff has not voluntarily cohabited with the defendant since the discovery by him of such adultery.
That there is no action pending, nor has any decree been entered against the said plaintiff, in an action, for divorce, on the ground of adultery, in this or any other State.
That the defendant has failed to prove the allegations contained in the “Fourth” paragraph of the amended answer, that the plaintiff, in the month of September, 1878, committed adultery with a woman who name is unknown to the defendant, in the City of New York.
That the defendant has failed to prove the allegation contained in the “Fifth” paragraph of the amended answer, that the plaintiff, about six weeks after the last mentioned date, committed adultery with another woman, whose name is unknown to the defendant, in the City of New York.
That the defendant has failed to prove the allegations contained in the “Sixth” paragraph of the amended answer, that the plaintiff, about two weeks after the last mentioned date, committed adultery with the same woman set forth in paragraph “Fifth” of said amended complaint.
That the defendant has failed to prove the allegations contained in the “Seventh” paragraph of the amended answer, that the plaintiff, at divers times and places, between the month of September, 1875, and the commencement of this action, committed adultery with sundry other women whose names are unknown to the defendant.
That the issue of said marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant is three children, Hedwig Catherine, Laura Catherine and Johan Gustav Adolf, at the commencement of this action aged respectively seven, five and three years.
Upon the foregoing facts I find as conclusions of Law.
That the plaintiff is not guilty of any of the acts of adultery charged in the amended answer herein.
That the plaintiff, Adolf Von Buren, is entitled to judgment, that the bonds of matrimony between himself and the defendant, Catherine Von Buren, be dissolved on account of the said adultery committed by the defendant Catherine Von Buren.
That the care and custody of the children, Hedwig Catherine, Laura Catherine and Johan Gustav Adolf, the issue of the said marriage of the plaintiff and the defendant, should be awarded to the plaintiff.
That the defendant pay the costs of this action to be taxed, and that the plaintiff have judgment therefor.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Dated New York, the 6
th day of March, 1885
Edward Holland Nicoll, Referee
____________________________
Judgment and Decree of Absolute Divorce
At a special term of the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the First Department held at the new County Court House this city on the 27
th day of March 1885.
Present: Honorable George R. Andrews, Justice
Adolf Von Buren
vs.
Catharine Von Buren
This action having been brought by Adolf Von Buren, the plaintiff, against Catharine Von Buren, the defendant, for judgment and a Decree of absolute Divorce on the ground of adultery on the part of the said defendant, and the summons and complaint herein having been personally served upon said defendant, and the defendant thereafter having duly appeared in this action and answered the plaintiff’s complaint, and this action thereafter having been referred to Edward H. Nicoll, Esq., an Attorney and Counsellor at Law of this Court, who was duly appointed the sole Referee to take proof of all matters raised by all the pleadings herein and to report the same to this Court with his opinion thereon, and the said Referee in pursuance to said order did take such proofs as were offered by the plaintiff and the defendant, and an order having been made and entered herein on the 15
th day of January 1885 directing said Referee to take proofs as to the counter-claim as alleged in the amended answer of defendant and said Referee having taken such proofs in pursuance to said order and did report thereon and in his opinion the plaintiff is entitled to the relief demanded in his complaint:
Now, therefore, upon all the pleadings and proceedings in this action, and on said order of reference and upon all the testimony taken before said Referee and on said Referee’s Report thereon on file in the office of the clerk of this Court and on motion of Robert Greenthal, Esq., plaintiff’s attorney herein:
It is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Referee’s Report be and the same to hereby in all things confirmed, and that said marriage contract of Adolf Von Buren, the plaintiff, with Catharine Von Buren, the defendant, be and the same is hereby dissolved and the plaintiff be and is hereby discharged from all obligations thereof, and it is further Ordered:
That the plaintiff be permitted to marry again during the lifetime of the defendant as if the said defendant were actually dead, but that the defendant shall not be permitted to marry during the lifetime of the plaintiff, and that the children mention in the complaint be and the same are hereby awarded to the plaintiff Adolf Von Buren.
Enter: GPA [Judge’s initials], Justice
Filed: March 27, 1885
County Clerk
New York County
===================================================
Brooklyn Daily Eagle – 31 March 1885, page 6
AFTER HIS CHILDREN
Mrs. Van Buren Refuses to Obey the Mandate of the Court.
On the 27
th inst. [27 March 1885], Adolph Van Buren, of No. 177 Twenty-second street, obtained a decree of absolute divorce from his wife, Catherine, who lives on Third avenue. Accompanying the decree was an order giving the plaintiff the custody of his three children, aged 8, 6 and 4 years. Mrs. Van Buren was duly notified of the order as to the disposal of the children, but flatly declined to obey it. She left her husband three years ago [in about 1882], since which time she has retained her children. Mr. Van Buren this morning [31 March 1885] filed his application to the [Brooklyn] Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus to recover the custody of his children, setting forth that his divorced wife is a woman whose character unfits her to have the care of young children.
Brooklyn Daily Eagle – 15 May 1885, page 6
CROSS DIVORCE SUITS
Mr. Van Buren Has Procured a Decree and Mrs. Van Buren Another. Motion was made before Chief Judge Reynolds, in the Special Term, [Brooklyn] City Court, this morning [15 May 1885], to punish Adolph Van Buren for contempt of court. He had suddenly stopped paying the alimony ordered by the [Brooklyn] Court in a suit for limited divorce brought by his wife Katerina. He was ordered to pay $8 weekly, and had paid $50 when he procured a decree of absolute divorce in New York City on the ground that his wife had been living with his brother [apparently Wilhelm, aka William]. No answer was made to that suit. [Note: Not correct, it was litigated to a conclusion.] He discontinued paying the alimony ordered by the Brooklyn court when he obtained the decree in the New York court. Now, Mr. H.A. Meyenborg claimed, $62 is owing to his client, and he moved for the committal for contempt of court for the non-payment of that amount. Judge Reynolds adjourned the hearing to allow the defendant to produce his receipts.
Brooklyn Daily Eagle – 22 May 1885, page 6
THE VAN BUREN CASE
A New York Divorce Which Stops the Alimony.
Mrs. Katherine Van Buren, a miserable looking woman, has haunted the Court House for many months, as persistently as Miss Flite in the celebrated case of Jarndyce vs. Jarndyce.
[Note:Jarndyce vs. Jarndyce is a fictional court case in Chancery in the novel Bleak House by Charles Dickens. The case concerns the fate of a large inheritance. It has dragged on for many generations prior to the action of the novel, so that, by the time it is resolved late in the narrative, legal costs have devoured the entire estate. The case is thus a byword for an interminable legal proceeding. Dickens used it to attack the chancery court system as being near totally worthless, as any "honourable man among its [Chancery's] practitioners" says, "Suffer any wrong that can be done you rather than come here!" All of the main characters are connected in some way through the case, though the actual legal proceedings appear only as background plot. Aside from the lawyers who prosecute and defend the case, every character who directly associates with it suffers some tragic fate. Miss Flite has long since lost her mind when the narrative begins, and Richard Carstone dies trying to win the inheritance for himself. ]
She flits from one room to another, always gravitating toward the Special Term, [Brooklyn] City Court, where she has long had a motion pending against her husband [Adolph Van Buren] for non-payment of alimony. The case was up on Special Term last week and was adjourned until this morning [22 May 1885]. Chief Judge Reynolds denied the motion to commit Adolph Van Buren for contempt on the ground that he had paid alimony up to the time he obtained his decree of divorce in New York.
Mrs. Van Buren will now have no inducement to haunt the Court House, as the recognition of her husband’s New York divorce will act as a stay to her action for limited divorce.
Their children are in a public institution.5 Katherine died on 16 October 1931, in 2016 Brown Street, Brooklyn, Kings County, New York, at age ~83. According to The Green-Wood Cemetery Burial Transcript, Katherine Von Buren died on 16 October 1931 of cardiac arrest at her home at 2016 Brown Street, Brooklyn, at age 83.
Note: She was apparently living with the family of her daughter Hattie (Hedwig) Van Buren Kuchenbecker at the time of her death, as they were at that address in the 1930 census. But Katherine is not shown with that family in the 1930 census.
6,4 She was buried on 18 October 1931 in The Green-Wood Cemetery, Brooklyn, Kings County, New York
+, in Section 204, Lot 29312, Grave No. 3 [December 2, 1998, letter from The Green-Wood Cemetery and The Green-Wood Cemetery Burial Transcript]
There is only one gravestone on this lot which reads:
My Dear Husband
Gus Adolf von Buren
Born May 16, 1847
Died Dec. 31, 1895
Though Lost to Sight Memory Dear
----------------------------------------
1881 Gustave A. von Buren 1955
and his wife
1878 Wilhelmina [No date].
7,8,8,4