Croghan v. . Livingston
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, made in an action for partition, compelling the appellants, who had jointly purchased a part of the property at the sale, to complete their purchase. Matilda 0. Livingston, one of the defendants in the action, being an infant more than fourteen years of age, Schuyler Livingston, her father, was, upon her petition, appointed her guardian ad litem, by an order entered October 2, 1856. He appeared and put in the common answer.
Read the full summary
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, made in an action for partition, compelling the appellants, who had jointly purchased a part of the property at the sale, to complete their purchase. Matilda 0. Livingston, one of the defendants in the action, being an infant more than fourteen years of age, Schuyler Livingston, her father, was, upon her petition, appointed her guardian ad litem, by an order entered October 2, 1856. He appeared and put in the common answer. A judgment was rendered May 5, 1857, directing the sale of the real estate described in the complaint. One parcel thereof, a…
1Opinion of the CourtPratt, J.
The principal question in this case I deem to be, whether the mistake on the part of the guardian in not filing his bond according to the requirements of the statute, rendered the proceedings and judgment absolutely void; for if it was merely an irregularity which rendered the proceedings voidable only, the court had undoubtedly the power to allow an amendment of the proceedings by filing a bond nunc pro tunc. My examination will therefore be directed mainly to this point.
First. The Court of Chancery had original jurisdiction of an action for partition without the aid of the statute. (1…
2Cited by37 opinions
- Ripp v. RippAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1971
- Emeric v. AlvaradoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
- Ingersoll v. . MangamNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
- McMurray v. . McMurrayNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
- Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. v. JenkinsIllinois Supreme Court · 1898
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.