Randolph v. Dickerson

5 Paige Ch. 517, 1835 N.Y. LEXIS 205, 1835 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 72
New York Court of Chancery·Decided October 27, 1835·Published

Opinion

The Chancellor

said, that as one of the heirs was the wife of a defendant in the original bill, that circumstance alone was a sufficient reason for not joining her as a party complainant in the bill of revivor against her husband; that she could not join in a suit against him, except by her proehein ami; and even then the suit could not be brought in [518] her name, without her consent; that, under the circumstances, it was not necessary to aver that she refused to join with the other heirs at law in the bill of revivor; and that if supplemental matter was improperly added to the bill, it furnished no reason for demurring to the whole bill, but the defendants should have demurred to the supplemental matter only.

The decree of the vice chancellor was therefore reversed, with costs; and the suit was directed to stand revived.

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

Randolph v. Dickerson, 5 Paige Ch. 517, 1835 N.Y. LEXIS 205, 1835 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 72 (N.Y. 1835).

5 Paige Ch. 517 (Randolph v. Dickerson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.