Barrett v. Boardman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barrett v. Boardman

275 A.D.2d 789

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 25, 1949

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 789 (Barrett v. Boardman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barrett v. Boardman, 275 A.D.2d 789 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

In our opinion, plaintiff is not entitled to maintain this action because he is not a tenant in common of the property. It is not necessary in this partition action to decide whether plaintiff’s interest as a co-ordinate mortgagee could properly be wiped out by the judgment foreclosing the daughter’s co-ordinate mortgage. Assuming, without deciding, that that relief was improperly granted, that would not make plaintiff a tenant in common entitling him to maintain this partition action. We do not pass on the appeal from the order in the foreclosure action denying plaintiff’s motion to vacate the judgment of foreclosure insofar as it purports to wipe out his interest, because that appeal has not been perfected. Present — Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Sneed, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ. [See post, p. 858.]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In our opinion, plaintiff is not entitled to maintain this action because he is not a tenant in common of the property. It is not necessary in this partition action to decide whether plaintiff’s interest as a co-ordinate mortgagee could properly be wiped out by the judgment foreclosing the daughter’s co-ordinate mortgage. Assuming, without deciding, that that relief was improperly granted, that would not make plaintiff a tenant in common entitling him to maintain this partition action. We do not pass on the appeal from the order in the foreclosure action denying plaintiff’s motion to vacate the judgment of foreclosure insofar as it purports to wipe out his interest, because that appeal has not been perfected. Present — Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Sneed, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ. [See post, p. 858.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 789, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barrett-v-boardman-nyappdiv-1949.