Leavitt v. Cruger
New York Court of Chancery
On a bill to forclose a mortgage executed by husband and wife, the subpoena was served on the husband only, the wife residing in France. The husband entered an appearance for himself, and filed a separate answer. A solicitor appeared for the wife separately, and the plaintiff served him with a copy of the bill, but no answer for her had been put in.
1Opinion of the Court
*The Chancellor:—The husband is bound to enter a joint appearance, and put in a joint answer for himself and wife, unless he shows a sufficient excuse. But if she refuses to join with him in an answer, or to swear to a plea, he will be permitted to put either in separately. (Chambers v. Bull, 1 Anst. 269; Pain v. -, 1 Ch. Cas. 296.) So far as relates to the appearance of the defendants jointly, it is probable that the complainant might have compelled it, either under the 114th or 115th rule. After the appearance had been entered, it would be incumbent on the husband to see that she answered…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Porter v. JacksonIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
- Dill v. . WisnerNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
- Wolf v. Banning & BucknellSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1859
- Eckerson v. VollmerNew York Supreme Court · 1855
- Foote v. LathropNew York Supreme Court · 1869
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.