Cromwell v. . Hull

New York Court of Appeals

Cromwell v. . Hull

97 N.Y. 209, 1884 N.Y. LEXIS 160

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 31, 1884

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 97 N.Y. 209 (Cromwell v. . Hull) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cromwell v. . Hull, 97 N.Y. 209, 1884 N.Y. LEXIS 160 (N.Y. 1884).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

If the plaintiff in the partition suit was not authorized to maintain the action because not a joint tenant or tenant in common with the remaindermen, still the defect was not jurisdictional, and the decree, if erroneous, not absolutely void. The court had jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action and of the parties, and if it determined incorrectly in awarding to the plaintiff a relief to which she was not entitled, *212 the error should have been corrected on appeal. (Blakeley v. Calder, 15 N. Y. 617; Howell v. Mills, 56 id. 226; Sullivan v. Sullivan, 66 id. 40.)

The purchaser bought with notice that the rights of the children not made parties to the partition were outstanding, and subject to those rights, paying a less amount because buying a less estate than the whole. What could pass by the foreclosure sale was what purported to be sold and must have been so understood by the purchaser, Ho wrong is done in requiring him to pay for exactly what he bought. An amendment of the decree was unnecessary. It furnished, as it stood, adequate authority for the sale of the property covered by the mortgage, and as that did not cover what the mortgagor did not have, the sale, as made, was consistent with the decree.

Before the partition suit, it is said, the widow gave to the Hew York and Boston Railroad Company a right to enter upon the land and maintain its road. That was dated July 19,1871, but not recorded until 1882. It does not appear that the partition suit was actually later than the lease, nor that the purchaser under the decree had any notice of its existence. That purchaser, while furnishing affidavits for the present purchaser, does not say that he had such notice. The successor of the Boston road was made defendant in the foreclosure suit, and holds a deed from Hull, who was also such defendant. Some other objections need not be especially noticed.

The order should be affirmed, with costs.

All concur.

Order affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

If the plaintiff in the partition suit was not authorized to maintain the action because not a joint tenant or tenant in common with the remaindermen, still the defect was not jurisdictional, and the decree, if erroneous, not absolutely void. The court had jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action and of the parties, and if it determined incorrectly in awarding to the plaintiff a relief to which she was not entitled, *212 the error should have been corrected on appeal. (Blakeley v. Calder, 15 N. Y. 617; Howell v. Mills, 56 id. 226; Sullivan v. Sullivan, 66 id. 40.)

The purchaser bought with notice that the rights of the children not made parties to the partition were outstanding, and subject to those rights, paying a less amount because buying a less estate than the whole. What could pass by the foreclosure sale was what purported to be sold and must have been so understood by the purchaser, Ho wrong is done in requiring him to pay for exactly what he bought. An amendment of the decree was unnecessary. It furnished, as it stood, adequate authority for the sale of the property covered by the mortgage, and as that did not cover what the mortgagor did not have, the sale, as made, was consistent with the decree.

Before the partition suit, it is said, the widow gave to the Hew York and Boston Railroad Company a right to enter upon the land and maintain its road. That was dated July 19,1871, but not recorded until 1882. It does not appear that the partition suit was actually later than the lease, nor that the purchaser under the decree had any notice of its existence. That purchaser, while furnishing affidavits for the present purchaser, does not say that he had such notice. The successor of the Boston road was made defendant in the foreclosure suit, and holds a deed from Hull, who was also such defendant. Some other objections need not be especially noticed.

The order should be affirmed, with costs.

All concur.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 N.Y. 209, 1884 N.Y. LEXIS 160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cromwell-v-hull-ny-1884.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack