New York Supreme Court, 1893

Mingay v. Lackey

Mingay v. Lackey
New York Supreme Court · Decided December 1, 1893 · Pratt
26 N.Y.S. 161; 74 Hun 89; 81 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 89; 57 N.Y. St. Rep. 270 (New York Supplement)

Counsel

Sidney H. Stuart, for appellant., Feitner & Beck, (Edwin S. Babcock, of counsel,) for respondent.

Mingay v. Lackey

Opinion of the Court

PRATT, J.

The interlocutory judgment did not divest the estate by curtesy. That existed and was fully enjoyed till the death of the life tenant. The object of paying a gross sum to the life tenant out of the proceeds of the sale is to indemnify the life tenant for the estate of which he is to be deprived by the partition sale and the conveyance under it. As the life tenant died before the sale took place, the life estate thus extinguished can no longer be the subject of sale, and the provisions of the interlocutory judgment relating thereto were properly expunged by amending the judgment. Mulford v. Hiers, 13 N. J. Eq. 13, is a case of dower, but the principle is applicable here. Order appealed from affirmed, with costs.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.