Matter of Heimsoth
175 N.E. 112, 255 N.Y. 409, 1931 N.Y. LEXIS 694
Opinion
We hold that in the circumstances of this case the appellant was under an active duty to see to it that the pendency of the separation suit be brought *411 to the notice of the court upon the inquest for default of an answer in the action for annulment.
The order should be affirmed. ■
Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Crane, Lehman, O’Brien and Hubbs, JJ., concur; Kellogg, J., not sitting.
Order affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Matter of Heimsoth, 175 N.E. 112, 255 N.Y. 409, 1931 N.Y. LEXIS 694 (N.Y. 1931).
175 N.E. 112 (Matter of Heimsoth) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Buckingham v. Alden
53 N.E.2d 101 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1944)
In re Isaacs
240 A.D. 498 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1934)