Majority
p. 409In the Matter of Joseph W. Heimsoth, an Attorney, Appellant. Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Respondent. (Argued January 6, 1931; decided February 10, 1931.)
p. 410There is no misconduct in not having pleaded the husband’s interlocutory annulment judgment as a defense to the wife’s separation suit. (Matter of Crandell, 196 N. Y. 127 ; Grotsch v. Hassey, 133 Misc. Rep. 373 ; Bryon v. Bryon, 134 App. Div. 320 ; Burton v. Burton, 150 App. Div. 790 ; Thorne v. Thorne, 210 App. Div. 55 ; Murphy v. Murphy, 194 App. Div. 395 ; Ostro v. Ostro, 169 App. Div. 790 ; 235 N. Y. 390 .) The order should be affirmed. (Matter of Flannery, 212 N. Y. 610 ; Matter of Goodman, 199 N. Y. 143 .)
Arthur T. O’Leary for appellant.
Chase Mellen and Einar Chrystie for respondent.
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
p. 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.
Cases cited
- In re the Administration of the Estate of Crandall 196 N. Y. 127 p. 410
- Bryon v. Bryon 134 App. Div. 320 p. 410
- In re the Judicial Settlement of the Accounts of Proceedings of Gilbert 235 N. Y. 390 p. 410
- In re Flannery 212 N. Y. 610 p. 410
- In re Goodman 199 N. Y. 143 p. 410