Case Name: MICHAEL R. DINAN, Appellant, v. WILLIAM CONEYS and HANNAH CONEYS, Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1893-02
Citations: 74 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 141
Docket Number: 
Parties: MICHAEL R. DINAN, Appellant, v. WILLIAM CONEYS and HANNAH CONEYS, Respondents.
Judges: Pratt, J., concurred.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 74
Pages: 141–144

Head Matter:
MICHAEL R. DINAN, Appellant, v. WILLIAM CONEYS and HANNAH CONEYS, Respondents.
Counter claim of a legacy in an action for the possession of land charged with its payment — form of the judgment.
In an action brought to recover the possession of land, the title to which is claimed by the plaintiff, as devisee thereof in a will, the defendant may set up the amount of a legacy given to her by the same will, charged upon the land which is the subject-matter of the action. (Code of Civil Pro., § 501.) (Dykman, J., dissenting.)
When the judgment in such an action is in favor of the plaintiff for the recovery of the land, and for the defendant for the amount-of the legacy, it should provide for the appointment of a referee to sell the land, and out of the proceeds to pay the legacy to the defendant and the balance to the plaintiff.
Appeal by the plaintiff, Michael R. Dinan, from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered in the office of the clerk of Rockland county on the 8th day of August, 1892, on the report of a referee, in an action brought to recover the possession of certain real estate.
The separate answer of the defendant, Hannah Coneys, is as follows:
The separate answer of Hannah Coneys, one of the defendants in this action, to the complaint of the plaintiff, respectfully shows to the court:
First. That this defendant, Hannah Coneys, is a daughter of Daniel Dinan, deceased, mentioned in said complaint, and that in and by his last will and testament in the said complaint mentioned, he, the said Daniel Dinan, deceased, in the same clause of this said will, in which the premises described in the complaint are devised to the plaintiff, she was and is entitled to the sum of three hundred dollars, as provided in said will, as follows :
“ He (the plaintiff meaning), being bound to pay to my daughter Hannah (the defendant, Hannah Coneys, meaning) or her heirs the sum of three hundred dollars for her kindness in taking care of her mother in her last illness, which sum I expressly charge on the property herein bequeathed or devised to him” (the said plaintiff meaning).
Second. That the said plaintiff has never paid to this defendant, the said Hannah Coneys, the said last-mentioned sum or any part thereof, and is now indebted to this defendant, Hannah Coneys, for the same, and said sum has been, and now is, a charge on the premises described in the said complaint, and this defendant denies that she unlawfully withholds possession of said premises from the plaintiff, and claims to be entitled to a judgment against the plaintiff in this action for the said sum of three hundred dollars, .with interest from the 28th day of February, 1883, with the costs and disbursements in this action.
Snider <& Hopper, for the appellant.
A. dé A. X. Fallon, for the respondents.

Opinion:
BarNard, P. J.:
Daniel B. Dinan devised a parcel of real estate, situate in Bock-land county, to his son the plaintiff. He gave the sum of $300 to the defendant Hannah Coneys and made the same a charge on the land. The defendants have occupied the land since the testator's death in 1883. The plaintiff seeks to recover possession of the land. The defendant, "William Coneys, avers that he has a claim for repairs made at plaintiff's request. The defendant, Hannah Coneys, sets up the bequest and its charge upon the lands, and asks judgment for its recovery of the plaintiff. The claim for repairs was rejected on the trial. No proof was given to show the payment of the $300 or of any part of it. The referee gave judgment for the recovery of the land by the plaintiff, and for a judgment for the bequest with interest in favor of Hannah Coneys against the plaintiff.
By section 501 of the Code a defendant may set up a cause of action connected with the subject of the action. The subject of the action is the real estate in question. One party seeks possession and the other seeks to recover the amount of a lien she has on the property created by the instrument which gave the title to the plaintiff. (The G. & H. Mfg. Co. v. Hall, 61 N. Y., 226.)
The judgment did not go far enough. There should have been appointed a referee to sell the land, and out of the proceeds to pay the legacy, and, after payment of the same, to pay over the balance to the plaintiff.
The judgment should be modified in this respect, and, as modified, affirmed, with costs.
Pratt, J., concurred.