Holden v. Rush
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by the plaintiff, Clarence E. Holden, ■ from á judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the-defendant Ralph Rush, entered in the office of the cleric of the county of Washington on the 13th day of December, 1906, upon the decision of the court, rendered after a trial at -the Washington Special Term, overruling the plaintiff’s demurrer to the second separate"defense contained in the answer of the defendant Ralph Rush, by Israel Rush, his guardian ad litem.
Read the full summary
Appeal by the plaintiff, Clarence E. Holden, ■ from á judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the-defendant Ralph Rush, entered in the office of the cleric of the county of Washington on the 13th day of December, 1906, upon the decision of the court, rendered after a trial at -the Washington Special Term, overruling the plaintiff’s demurrer to the second separate"defense contained in the answer of the defendant Ralph Rush, by Israel Rush, his guardian ad litem. Interlocutory judgment affirmed, with, costs, on the opinion of Van Kirk, J., at" Special Term. All concurred.
1Opinion of the Court
The following is the opinion delivered at Special Term :
Van Kirk, J. :
This action is brought for the partition of certain real estate situate in the village of Whitehall, H. Y. The defendant Ralph Rush interposes an answerand,, as a second separate defense, sets up a will of S. Elnora Rush and claims that, under the provisions of this will, *717the real estate sought to be partitioned or sold could not be disposed of until the defendant Balpli Bush reaches the age of .twenty-one years. The plaintiff has demurred to this separate answer on the ground that it is insufficient in law. Whether or not…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Chew v. . SheldonNew York Court of Appeals · 1915
- Anderson v. EdwardsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954