Cross v. Birch

New York Supreme Court

Cross v. Birch

27 Misc. 295, 58 N.Y.S. 438

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedApril 15, 1899

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 27 Misc. 295 (Cross v. Birch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cross v. Birch, 27 Misc. 295, 58 N.Y.S. 438 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Hiscock, J.

This motion must be denied. In the first place no sufficient affidavit of merits has been presented with the papers. In the second place, the question which, as I understand it, the defendant desires- to raise in the case, would not present a good defense. It has been held by the interlocutory judgment that the plaintiff and defendants were tenants in common. 'The defendant Birch claims that they were joint tenants. Even if this is so, plaintiff was entitled to bring her action for partition. § 1582, Code.

If a- sale being had defendant Birch was entitled to a different, disposition of the proceeds upon the theory of a joint tenancy from that now provided upon the theory of a tenancy in common, this -might be a proper basis for an application to' the court to have that question further considered.

. The motion is denied, with $10 costs.

Motion denied, with $10 costs.

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

Hiscock, J.

This motion must be denied. In the first place no sufficient affidavit of merits has been presented with the papers. In the second place, the question which, as I understand it, the defendant desires- to raise in the case, would not present a good defense. It has been held by the interlocutory judgment that the plaintiff and defendants were tenants in common. 'The defendant Birch claims that they were joint tenants. Even if this is so, plaintiff was entitled to bring her action for partition. § 1582, Code.

If a- sale being had defendant Birch was entitled to a different, disposition of the proceeds upon the theory of a joint tenancy from that now provided upon the theory of a tenancy in common, this -might be a proper basis for an application to' the court to have that question further considered.

. The motion is denied, with $10 costs.

Motion denied, with $10 costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 Misc. 295, 58 N.Y.S. 438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cross-v-birch-nysupct-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack