Case Name: Warren Ackley and Demarias Ackley, Appellants, v. Levi Tarbox and another, Respondents
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1865-03
Citations: 31 N.Y. 564
Docket Number: 
Parties: Warren Ackley and Demarias Ackley, Appellants, v. Levi Tarbox and another, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 31
Pages: 564–568

Head Matter:
Warren Ackley and Demarias Ackley, Appellants, v. Levi Tarbox and another, Respondents.
In an action brought in the name of the husband and wife for damages to the separate property of the wife, the joining of the name of the husband is unnecessary; and, under the 113d section of the Code, it maybe stricken from the proceedings, either before or after judgment.
It is, therefore, not such an error as calls for a reversal of the judgment; but his name will be stricken out, on motion, leaving the judgment to stand in thji name of the wife.
This aetioh originated in a justice’s court, and was brought to recovel’ the value of ¡a cow, the separate property of Demarias Ackley, one of the plaintiffs, and which was alleged to have been taken and converted by the defendants. In the complaint before the justice, which was in writing, it was averred, that the cow was the property of Demarias Ackley, one of the plaintiffs, and the wife of the other plaintiff Warren Ackley, who is joined in this suit as husband. The defendants took issue, denying that Demarias Ackley was the owner of the cow; and a jury haying been empanneled, they rendered a verdict for the plaintiffs; whereupon the justice gave judgment for the amount of the verdict and costs, in favor of the plaintiffs, and which on appeal was affirmed by the county court. The Supreme Court, at General Term, reversed the judgments of the county court and the justice’s court, on the sole ground, that in actions concerning the separate property of a married woman she must sue alone, and cannot join with her husband. (See 29 Barb., 512, S. G.)
The plaintiffs appealed.
John H. Reynolds, for the appellants.
L. L. Bundy, for the respondents.

Opinion:
Davies, J.
It is manifest from the complaint that the action in' fact was that of Demarias Ackley, in relation to her separate property, and that Warren Ackley was made a party plaintiff, solely as her husband, and a nominal party only. At the time this action was commenced, it was not as well settled as it is now that the wife, for injuries to her separate property, may maintain an action in her own name without joining her husband. He was undoubtedly made a party plaintiff, ex ábundcmte cautela, and to obviate any objection which might have been made by the defendants, that the action could not be maintained by the wife without joining the husband. He was clearly an unnecessary party, and his name on the record could produce no embarrassment to the defendants. He claimed no interest in the subject matter of the controversy, and, in fact, was not a party litigant. His presence upon the record was a matter of supererogation. Section 173 of the Code was framed to meet a case like the present. It declares that the court may, before or after judgment in furtherance of justice, amend any pleading, process or proceeding, by adding or striking out the name of any party. As soon as the objection was taken that the husband was an unnecessary party, as he clearly was, it was the duty of the court to have stricken his name from the proceedings in the action. It can now be done, and the judgment stand as it ought, a judgment in favor of the wife for injury to her personal property.
The judgment of the Supreme Court should be reversed, and the judgments of the county court and the justice's court affirmed.