The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-10-24
Supreme CouKt-SpecIal Term.
Before Hon. Justice Roosevelt.

PARTITIoN-THE LATE COURT OF oHANcERY-rTs
POWERS. ee
appear sum cisnty in the opinion Of the Court which
was rendered by :
Of the late Nicholas Gcuverneur the elder were the
owners - tenants ia common OF block Of ground in the
Twelfth ward Of this city, bounded By Third and Fourth
partition for the sum Of $780, M. Bibby who was the
1ns 81 s gs1 n
zig children were made parties to the suit in her stea
One Of them, Miss Marie Louise nllotson who was .
presents her petition praying In effect that the sale
far as she Is concerned may Be set ssds. Her interest
20 s1s a q
value. II conceded BY the petitioners counsel (Ar
ooeDor that all The other parties to the partition suit
spsctivs shars d the proceeds, and thus vlrtuaiy
as TIC 70 Hsshs OF
cree Of sale :, in partition could % made By the
ksed-not merely admitted-that sale was not neces
safy. That court, however high its dignity, had no
II acted the parties themselves compelling them by
Injunction on paio of commitment to execute convey
sIces Special ststutes, therefore. in mortgage and
Partition cases became necessary to remedy this incon
ven:ence The Legislature accordingly at an early pe
ROD amorg other provisions passed act declaring
power upon petition bill aled in that court to decree
partitions and SALSA % was given to the Coamon Law
Courts In Like cases. RS $40 Now o. to the lat
ter ceu1t ths provision was that tenants In co nmon
might apply BY petition for partition Of the premises
and for sale should appear that partition could
not bs ads without prejudice 1t Is oontsndsd there
bill in the other prayed for the Court could not de-
cree sale, not even H. In the present instance the
bill prayed In the event Of actual partition being de-
pied, for 1uch other relief the nature and circum
stances Of the should require" The proposition
goes further-i Assumes not only that the obeo
ton might have been taken BY way Of defence In the
regular course q the suit, but that not TAKEN the
decree stin would be absolutely void Under such .
doctrine, 90 rigid and technicsi partition suit
would indeed BE- . straight and narrow way unAt en-
trely, in the hurry Of American Life, for any prac-
teal Purposes. No prudent conveyanoer would b
willing TO pass title OF which partition sale const.
tdtsd necessary link single other suggestion, how
ever, - seems to me, must eectually dispose of t.
Suppose the other parties IN answer to Mr.. Bibby's
BID, had said 1--WE admit the right to partition, but We
insist, notwithstanding the plaintiffs opinion 70 the
BY sale and division Of the proceeds" And suppose
further that reference to master - was the exact
in this instance he had reported In accordance
with the defendants views, must the Court In such
In oppotion, m0sover, to the Wishes Of the de-
PENDANTS themeelyes have dismissed the blu. and com
fresh suits It was old, ws recognised rule of the
Chancsry that whatever might be the specific prayer
. bill, the Chancellor would always, under . general
prayer sivs such Hesf TO all parties - the crcustan
css Of the case whom fully developed justly call for
TIE partition act framed In references TO this rule
and the bill which It contemplated although Leading In
scne casss to s.l. v.s called simply 90 ban for ths
Aiipg Il for granted that, under bu for PARTITION