
    In the Matter of Joseph W. Heimsoth, an Attorney, Appellant. Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Respondent.
    (Argued January 6, 1931;
    decided February 10, 1931.)
    
      
      Arthur T. O’Leary for appellant.
    There is no misconduct in not having pleaded the husband’s interlocutory annulment judgment as a defense to the wife’s separation suit. (Matter of Crandell, 196 N. Y. 127; Grotsch v. Hassey, 133 Misc. Rep. 373; Bryon v. Bryon, 134 App. Div. 320; Burton v. Burton, 150 App. Div. 790; Thorne v. Thorne, 210 App. Div. 55; Murphy v. Murphy, 194 App. Div. 395; Ostro v. Ostro, 169 App. Div. 790; 235 N. Y. 390.)
    
      Chase Mellen and Einar Chrystie for respondent.
    The order should be affirmed. (Matter of Flannery, 212 N. Y. 610; Matter of Goodman, 199 N. Y. 143.)
   Per Curiam.

We hold that in the circumstances of this case the appellant was under an active duty to see to it that the pendency of the separation suit be brought to the notice of the court upon the inquest for default of an answer in the action for annulment.

The order should be affirmed. ■

Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Crane, Lehman, O’Brien and Hubbs, JJ., concur; Kellogg, J., not sitting.

Order affirmed.  