Case Name: DEN ex dem. CHANCE and ux. against STEWARD; DEN ex dem. HOLLINGSHEAD against The Same
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1812-02
Citations: 3 N.J.L. 929
Docket Number: 
Parties: [*] DEN ex dem. CHANCE and ux. against STEWARD. DEN ex dem. HOLLINGSHEAD against The Same.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 486–487

Head Matter:
[*] DEN ex dem. CHANCE and ux. against STEWARD. DEN ex dem. HOLLINGSHEAD against The Same.
Pending the first action, Hollingshead had brought the second; and although Steward had exchanged the common rules in the action of Chance, yet at the circuit he had abandoned the defense. It was admitted that Steward had no title or claim to possession.
Elmer
now moved the court for a rule to let Chance in to defend the suit against Hollingshead in lieu of Steward; he jhad obtained a rule to show cause last term.
The facts on which Mr. Elmer founded his motion were, that a farm of which the premises in question was a portion, had been for a great length of time in the possession and actual occupation of one Abel Lee, deceased; that on his death it continued in the possession of the family; that Steward manned the widow of Lee, and that the premises in question was assigned to Mrs. Steward as her dower; that Mrs. Steward was now dead, and her husband had no claim to the premises; that Chance married a daughter of Lee, and brought his action in her right, and now claimed to be permitted to defend in her own right.
Crane and I. H. Williamson
read an affidavit to prove that Steward, before the death of his wife, has taken a lease from Hollingshead, and thereby acknowledged Hollingshead’s title, but there was no evidence of the payment of rent. They contended that Abel Lee had only a life estate in the premises, and that the real title was in Hollingshead; and that, as he obtained judgment by default against the casual ejector, he was entitled to possession, and [677] ought to be let in to defend against Chance.
[*] Elmer, in reply. The judgment against the casual ejector is not complete; the rule to show cause, obtained last term, prevented it.

Opinion:
By the Court.
The possession of the Lees ought not to be disturbed by the act of the husband of the tenant in dower; it appears that Steward himself obtained the assignment of dower to his wife, and went into possession by virtue of her right. Chance must be let in to defend in right of his wife, against Hollingshead.
Rule absolute.