Newman v. O'Rourke

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Newman v. O'Rourke

149 N.Y.S. 514

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedOctober 15, 1914

DocketNos. 275, 276

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 149 N.Y.S. 514 (Newman v. O'Rourke) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Newman v. O'Rourke, 149 N.Y.S. 514 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

KAPPER, J.

Summary proceedings brought on behalf of the heirs at law of the deceased wife to oust the husband from premises owned by the wife and in which the husband had no right of curtesy.

[1-3] The presence of the husband in the premises at the time of the wife’s death did not constitute a legal occupancy. The final orders import a finding that the husband was present solely by the wife’s sufferance. Martin v. Rector, 101 N. Y. 77, 81, 4 N. E. 183. The legal title was in the wife, so that both the occupation and possession, in a legal sense, was that of the wife, and not of the husband. Kavanagh v. Barber, 131 N. Y. 211, 30 N. E. 235, 15 L. R. A. 689; Danihee v. Hyatt, 151 N. Y. 493, 45 N. E. 939. Immediately upon the death of the wife, the legal title descended to the heirs at law, and the husband was no longer present, even by sufferance, but became, as against the heirs at law, an intruder, within the meaning of subdivision 4 of section 2232 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the proceedings against him under that statute were proper. Lincoln Trust Co. v. Hutchinson, 65 Mise. Rep. 590, 120 N. Y. Supp. 811, is distinguishable; the occupant there, the widow, being entitled to remain in the house of. her husband under the statute for 40 days after her husband’s death, and therefore both her entry and possession were lawful.

Final order in each case affirmed, with costs.

KELLY and BLACKMAR, JJ., concur.

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

KAPPER, J.

Summary proceedings brought on behalf of the heirs at law of the deceased wife to oust the husband from premises owned by the wife and in which the husband had no right of curtesy.

[1-3] The presence of the husband in the premises at the time of the wife’s death did not constitute a legal occupancy. The final orders import a finding that the husband was present solely by the wife’s sufferance. Martin v. Rector, 101 N. Y. 77, 81, 4 N. E. 183. The legal title was in the wife, so that both the occupation and possession, in a legal sense, was that of the wife, and not of the husband. Kavanagh v. Barber, 131 N. Y. 211, 30 N. E. 235, 15 L. R. A. 689; Danihee v. Hyatt, 151 N. Y. 493, 45 N. E. 939. Immediately upon the death of the wife, the legal title descended to the heirs at law, and the husband was no longer present, even by sufferance, but became, as against the heirs at law, an intruder, within the meaning of subdivision 4 of section 2232 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the proceedings against him under that statute were proper. Lincoln Trust Co. v. Hutchinson, 65 Mise. Rep. 590, 120 N. Y. Supp. 811, is distinguishable; the occupant there, the widow, being entitled to remain in the house of. her husband under the statute for 40 days after her husband’s death, and therefore both her entry and possession were lawful.

Final order in each case affirmed, with costs.

KELLY and BLACKMAR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 N.Y.S. 514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newman-v-orourke-nyappterm-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack