Hubbell v. Lerch
New York Supreme Court
APPEAL from an order made at the Monroe special term, sustaining a demurrer to an amended complaint. The complaint alleged, 1st. That one Alfred Hubbell, in his lifetime, was lawfully seised in fee and possessed of the premises therein described; and being so seised and possessed thereof he died in 1853, intestate, leaving Mary Hubbell his widow, who died -in 1855, intestate, and Alfred M., Mathew arid Albon H. Hubbell, his only heirs at law, then minors.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from an order made at the Monroe special term, sustaining a demurrer to an amended complaint. The complaint alleged, 1st. That one Alfred Hubbell, in his lifetime, was lawfully seised in fee and possessed of the premises therein described; and being so seised and possessed thereof he died in 1853, intestate, leaving Mary Hubbell his widow, who died -in 1855, intestate, and Alfred M., Mathew arid Albon H. Hubbell, his only heirs at law, then minors. Said Mathew and Alfred M. died in 1868, intestate and unmarried, leaving said- Albon H. the only next of kin, who, in February 1870,' duly…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Johnson, J.
The complaint manifestly contains two counts, and has two causes of action which are entirely hostile to each other, and which do not equally affect all the parties to the action as required by section 167 of the Code. Here are two plaintiffs, each claiming under a title adverse and hostile to the other, and each, apparently, upon the face of the complaint, having a good cause of action against the defendant in his own right. Bach cause of action is set out separately, under different heads, or numbers, in the usual way of stating separate causes of action. Ho fact is…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- St. John v. PierceNew York Supreme Court · 1856
- Smith & Kniffin v. DeweyNew York Supreme Court · 1836