Janinski v. Heidelberg
New York Supreme Court
Appeal from an order made at Special Term, setting aside the notice of appearance given by Rnfns L. Scott, Esq., 'as attorney for the defendant, Ida Heidelberg. The action was brought to foreclose a mortgage, and the appellant was joined as a defendant with her husband, Carl Heidelberg; the latter being the owner of the equity of redemption.
Read the full summary
Appeal from an order made at Special Term, setting aside the notice of appearance given by Rnfns L. Scott, Esq., 'as attorney for the defendant, Ida Heidelberg. The action was brought to foreclose a mortgage, and the appellant was joined as a defendant with her husband, Carl Heidelberg; the latter being the owner of the equity of redemption. The appellant did not join in the mortgage, which was given by her husband to secure a portion of the purchase-money. ’Within the proper time Carl Heidelberg appeared by E. K. Sackett, Esq., as his attorney, and the appellant by Mr. Scott. The plaintiff…
1Opinion of the Court
Barrett, J.:
There is no doubt that, under the practice prevailing before the Code of Civil Procedure, a separate appearance for the wife in an action affecting only her inchoate-right of dower would have been improper. Both under the chancery practice and the Code of Procedure, where the action did not concern her separate estate, the husband was bound to enter a joint appearance, and put in a joint answer, for himself and wife. (Leavitt v. Cruger, 1 Paige, 421; Foote v, Lathrop, 53 Barb., 183; Eckerson v. Vollmer, 11 *440How. Pr., 42; Ferguson v. Smith, 2 Johns. Ch., 139; Lathrop v. Heacock, 4…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Leavitt v. CrugerNew York Court of Chancery · 1829
- Eckerson v. VollmerNew York Supreme Court · 1855
- Foote v. LathropNew York Supreme Court · 1869
- Lathrop v. HeacockNew York Supreme Court · 1871