Henry v. Henry

The Superior Court of New York City

Henry v. Henry

3 Rob. 614

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedApril 15, 1854

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Rob. 614 (Henry v. Henry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Henry v. Henry, 3 Rob. 614 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1854).

Pincite

Opinion

Robertson, Ch. J.

The charge of adultery, sought to be set up in the answer, may be a good subject for a separate action. It is not a counter-claim, because it does not arise out of the transaction set forth in the complaint as the foundation of the plaintiff’s claim, nor is- it connected with the subject of the action. (Code, § 150. Diddell v. Diddell, 3 Abb. 167.) Nor is it a defense, because not connected with the acts of cruelty charged in the complaint. The kinds of relief asked for, are entirely different, so that they cannot be joined in one action, (Johnson v. Johnson, & John. Ch. 163; McIntosh v. McIntosh, 12 How. Pr. 289,) and the entire incongruity of the causes of action would prevent their being tried in one action. (McNamara v. McNamara, 9 Abb. 18.) And it has been so held, in one case. (Burdell v. Burdell, 2 Barb. 473. S. C. 3 How. Pr. 216.)

It is not necessary to notice other objections.

Motion denied, with $7 costs.

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

Robertson, Ch. J.

The charge of adultery, sought to be set up in the answer, may be a good subject for a separate action. It is not a counter-claim, because it does not arise out of the transaction set forth in the complaint as the foundation of the plaintiff’s claim, nor is- it connected with the subject of the action. (Code, § 150. Diddell v. Diddell, 3 Abb. 167.) Nor is it a defense, because not connected with the acts of cruelty charged in the complaint. The kinds of relief asked for, are entirely different, so that they cannot be joined in one action, (Johnson v. Johnson, & John. Ch. 163; McIntosh v. McIntosh, 12 How. Pr. 289,) and the entire incongruity of the causes of action would prevent their being tried in one action. (McNamara v. McNamara, 9 Abb. 18.) And it has been so held, in one case. (Burdell v. Burdell, 2 Barb. 473. S. C. 3 How. Pr. 216.)

It is not necessary to notice other objections.

Motion denied, with $7 costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Rob. 614, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henry-v-henry-nysuperctnyc-1854.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack