Yax v. Yax
| Citation | 240 N.Y. 590,148 N.E. 717 |
| Parties | YAX v. YAX et al. |
| Decision Date | 31 March 1925 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
Action by Margaret H. Yax against Albert C. Yax and others. Defendants appeal, by permission from order of the Appellate Division, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying motion for dismissal. A question was certified.
Question certified answered, and order affirmed.
Appeal by permission from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (211 App. Div. 872, 206 N. Y. S. 974), entered December 3, 1924, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion for a dismissal of the complaint. The action was brought by the divorced wife of the defendant Albert C. Yax for a partition of real property, which the plaintiff and the defendant Albert C. Yax took title to as tenants by the entirety. The complaint alleges that the defendant Albert C. Yax, the husband of the plaintiff, obtained an interlocutory judgment of divorce on the 8th day of May, 1924, and that the same became absolute and final on the 8th day of August, 1924, and that by reason thereof the plaintiff and the defendant Albert C. Yax became seized and possessed in fee of the premises sought to be partitioned as tenants in common.
The following question was certified:
‘Does the complaint herein state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action?’
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth department.
Stephen V. O'Gorman, of Buffalo, for appellants.
Alfred L. Harrison, of Buffalo, and J. H. Madden, of New York City, for respondent.
Order affirmed, with costs; question certified answered in the affirmative.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Huber v. Huber
...133, 10 N.Y.S. 790, so states). Of the other decisions in which the rule was reiterated, examination of the record in three (Yax v. Yax, 240 N.Y. 590, 148 N.E. 717 [a decision on pleadings]; Yax v. Yax, 125 Misc. 851, 213 N.Y.S. 4, affirmed 217 App.Div. 714, 215 N.Y.S. 941 [the same case af......
-
Bell v. Bell
...in common, without survivorship. This same court in a later case held that either divorced party has the right to partition. Yax v. Yax, 240 N.Y. 590, 148 N.E. 717. Although the case of Schnitzer v. Schnitzer, Fla.1949, 40 So.2d 450, did not involve an estate by the entireties crystallizing......
-
Gasko v. Del Ventura
...v. Stauble, 84 A.D.2d 530, 443 N.Y.S.2d 88) and each was thereafter capable of bringing a partition action against the other (Yax v. Yax, 240 N.Y. 590, 148 N.E. 717). As a judgment creditor, plaintiff stands in the shoes of the ex-husband (Bank of New York v. Stauble, supra True, where a wi......
-
Ripp v. Ripp
...of the parties (Stelz v. Shreck, 128 N.Y. 263, 28 N.E. 510), an action for partition usually may be brought by either party (Yax v. Yax, 240 N.Y. 590, 148 N.E. 717; Plancher v. Plancher, 35 A.D.2d 417, 317 N.Y.S.2d 140). It is this doctrine upon which the plaintiff relies in this Nonetheles......