Bennett v. Harrisville Combing Mills
| Decision Date | 26 February 1952 |
| Citation | 204 Misc. 279 |
| Parties | George K. Bennett, Plaintiff,<BR>v.<BR>Harrisville Combing Mills, Inc., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Ernst, Cane & Berner for Harrisville Combing Mills, Inc., defendant.
Robert K. Story for plaintiff.
The corporate defendant herein moves for an order directing a severance of plaintiff's cause of action against the deceased individual defendant so as to continue the action against the corporate defendant alone. By companion motion, plaintiff moves for a continuance of the action against the executrix of the deceased individual defendant.
The affidavits submitted on this motion disclose that the deceased individual defendant was at all times a resident of the State of Rhode Island, that his wife was appointed executrix of his estate by the Probate Court in Rhode Island and that ancillary letters have not been issued in this State. The affidavit of the treasurer of the corporate defendant states that "Ancillary Letters will not be taken out by the estate of the individual defendant in the State of New York."
The action is for breach of an alleged contract. No warrant of attachment has been levied against the property of the deceased defendant. There is no res within this jurisdiction. The action being in personam, this court has lost jurisdiction over the person of the defendant Levy. Section 84 of the Civil Practice Act, permitting the continuance of an action against a deceased party's legal representative, has no application to legal representatives appointed outside of the State of New York.
Prior to 1926 (from 1911 to 1926), section 160 of the Decedent Estate Law permitted suits by and against foreign administrators and executors. However, the provision permitting suits against foreign representatives was held unconstitutional (McMaster v. Gould, 240 N.Y. 379). Thereafter, the Legislature repealed this section of the Decedent Estate Law in its entirety. (L. 1926, ch. 660.) Thus, until September 1, 1951, the general rule was that a foreign executor or administrator could not sue or be sued in the courts of this State except in certain cases involving the disposition or preservation of a res within the jurisdiction, actions under section 130 of the Decedent Estate Law and wherever it appeared essential to the administration of justice. (Driscoll v. Loeb, 270 App. Div. 150; Baldwin v. Powell, 294 N.Y. 130; Helme v. Buckelew, 229 N.Y. 363.)
By section 1 of chapter 522 of the Laws of 1951, effective September 1, 1951, section 160 of the Decedent Estate Law was revived so as to permit suits by a foreign legal representative upon meeting certain requirements. Suits against foreign legal representatives are not within...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lewis v. Lewis
...authority for continuing (as distinguished from commencing) an action against foreign estate representatives; Bennett v. Harrisville Combing Mills, 204 Misc. 279, 111 N.Y.S.2d 462; McMaster v. Gould, 240 N.Y. 379, 148 N.E. 556, 40 A.L.R. 792; and see, also, Muller v. Muller, 6 A.D.2d 891, 1......
-
Cosgrove v. Weierman
...against decedent's nonresident executrix. McMaster v. Gould, 240 N.Y. 379, 148 N.E. 556, 40 A.L.R. 792; Bennett v. Harrisville Combing Mills, Inc., 204 Misc. 279, 111 N.Y.S.2d 462. In Leighton v. Roper, 300 N.Y. 434, 91 N.E.2d 876, 18 A.L.R.2d 537, relied upon by plaintiff, the Court was co......
- Geraghty v. State of New York