Webber v. Moritz

The Superior Court of New York City

Webber v. Moritz

11 Abb. Pr. 113

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedSeptember 15, 1860

StatusPublished

This text of 11 Abb. Pr. 113 (Webber v. Moritz) 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

Webber v. Moritz, 11 Abb. Pr. 113 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1860).

Pincite

Opinion

Bosworth, J.

The defendant moves to vacate the order of arrest heretofore made in this action, and moves on the affidavit on which it was granted. That affidavit states that the defendant violently assaulted the said Bertha; injured her severely; and that the husband has sustained special damage, which is stated.

The defendant insists that there is a misjoinder of parties ; that if the action be treated as one to recover the husband’s special damage, he alone should sue; and that if it be an action to recover damages for the injury to the wife, she should be the sole plaintiff. He further insists that a demurrer for the [114]*114misjoinder would be sustained, and that the order should therefore be vacated.

The statute of 1860 (ch. 90, § 2), provides that any married woman may sue in her own name to recover damages for any injury to her person, the same as if she were sole; and that the damages recovered, or received on a settlement, shall be her sole and separate property. Assuming that she should sue alone, it is not clear that the defect can be reached by demurrer. (7 Abbotts' Pr., 41; 17 N. Y., 592; 16 How. Pr., 195.) The authorities on this point seem to be conflicting. But assuming that a demurrer will lie, I think the plaintiffs would be allowed to amend the summons and complaint on terms. Inasmuch as the affidavit shows a cause of action, and the only defect is that there is one plaintiff more than there should be, and as that defect is amendable, I do not think the motion should be granted.

It is denied, but without costs.

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

Bosworth, J.

The defendant moves to vacate the order of arrest heretofore made in this action, and moves on the affidavit on which it was granted. That affidavit states that the defendant violently assaulted the said Bertha; injured her severely; and that the husband has sustained special damage, which is stated.

The defendant insists that there is a misjoinder of parties ; that if the action be treated as one to recover the husband’s special damage, he alone should sue; and that if it be an action to recover damages for the injury to the wife, she should be the sole plaintiff. He further insists that a demurrer for the [114]*114misjoinder would be sustained, and that the order should therefore be vacated.

The statute of 1860 (ch. 90, § 2), provides that any married woman may sue in her own name to recover damages for any injury to her person, the same as if she were sole; and that the damages recovered, or received on a settlement, shall be her sole and separate property. Assuming that she should sue alone, it is not clear that the defect can be reached by demurrer. (7 Abbotts' Pr., 41; 17 N. Y., 592; 16 How. Pr., 195.) The authorities on this point seem to be conflicting. But assuming that a demurrer will lie, I think the plaintiffs would be allowed to amend the summons and complaint on terms. Inasmuch as the affidavit shows a cause of action, and the only defect is that there is one plaintiff more than there should be, and as that defect is amendable, I do not think the motion should be granted.

It is denied, but without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 Abb. Pr. 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/webber-v-moritz-nysuperctnyc-1860.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack