Stock v. Mann
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Per curiam
Our attention has been called to what was said in Croghan v. Livingston (17 N. Y. 218, 223), which was reviewed and reiterated in Rogers v. McLean (34 N. Y. 536, 540), to the effect that an infant or non-resident incompetent not made a party at all might be brought in and the judgment allowed to stand as against her so that she could receive the benefits of a previous judicial sale in the partition action. Distinguishing between what was said and what was decided in those cases, we are led to conclude that they are distinguishable and not such authority as to justify a reversal of that part…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Croghan v. . LivingstonNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- Stock v. MannNew York Court of Appeals · 1930
- Rogers v. . McLeanNew York Court of Appeals · 1866
3Cited by3 opinions
- Fried v. Lakeland Hide & Leather Co.New York Supreme Court · 1958
- Drivas v. LekasAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1942
- In re GreenwaldAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1936