Case ID: ad_17/html/0288-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Van Brunt, P. J.:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Miles M. O’Brien and James G. Cannon, as Receivers of the Madison Square Bank, Respondents, v. Joseph F. Blaut and Others, Defendants, and Rebecca Kalisoher, as Executrix, etc., of Adolph S. Kalisoher. Deceased, Appellant.
    
      Action by the receivers of a bank to recover for losses arising out of the negligent conduct of its directors—it does-not abate by. the death of a director—default in serving a second amended, complaint.
    
    An action, brought by the receivers of a hanking corporation, to recover damages for losses'sustained by the bank, caused by the alleged negligent conduct of its directors, does not abate, as to a director so sued, upon his death.
    A demurrer interposed by a defendant in such an action to an amended' complaint served therein was sustained; .the plaintiffs, who were given leave to serve a second amended complaint, appealed from the interlocutory'judgment, andón the same day the defendant died, whereupon the notice of appeal was returned,
    ■ and the' plaintiffs subsequently withdrew their appeal, but before the time of this withdrawal the time of the plaintiffs to serve a second amended complaint had.expired.
    
      Meld, that the plaintiffs were entitled to b.e put in a position in which they could apply to he relieved from their default in serving a second amended complaint, ■ and to that end to have the executrix of the deceased defendant substituted as a party defendant. ' ■
    Appeal by the defendant, Rebecca Kalischer, as executrix,, etc., of Adolph S. Kalischer, deceased, from an' order of the Supreme Court, made at the Hew . York Special'Term and entered in the office of the- clerk of. the county of New York on the 16th day of' February, 1897, substituting said Rebecca Kalischer, as executrix, etc., of Adolph S. Kalischer, deceased, as.a defendant hérein, in place of said Adolph S- Kalischer. , '
    
      
      Joseph Pettreteh, for the appellant.
    
      Louis Marshall and Samuel Untermyer, for the respondents.
   Van Brunt, P. J.:

This action was brought by the plaintiffs, as receivers of the Madison Square Bank, to recover damages for losses sustained by said bank because of the negligent conduct of its directors. Adolph S. Kalischer was one of such directors and a defendant in the action. Such proceedings were had that an amended complaint was served. The.defendant Adolph S. Kalischer demurred to the amended complaint, which was sustained by interlocutory judgment duly entered, with leave, however, to the plaintiffs to serve a second amended complaint. The plaintiffs appealed from the interlocutory judgment to the Appellate Division, and on the same day the defendant Kalischer died, but whether before or after the service of the notice of appeal does not appear. Mr. Kalischer’s attorney returned the notice of appeal upon the ground that Kalischer had died. The plaintiffs refused to recognize the return of the notice of appeal. Subsequently the plaintiffs gave notice of the withdrawal of the appeal. Kalischer left a will, which was duly admitted to probate, and Rebecca Kalischer duly qualified as his executrix. The túne of plaintiffs to serve an amended complaint had. expired before the withdrawal of the notice of appeal. The plaintiffs then moved to substitute Rebecca Kalischer, as executrix, etc., of Adolph S. Kalischer, as a party defendant in this action and for other relief. This motion was granted, and from the order thereupon entered the said executrix appeals.

The principal grounds upon which the appellant bases her appeal are that the cause of action did not survive, and that, the plaintiffs, being in default in their service of a second amended complaint, the court had no power to grant the motion of the plaintiffs.

The first ground is disposed of by the case of Pierson v. Morgan (17 Civ. Proc. Rep. 124), and we see no reason to differ from the conclusion arrived at in that case. As to the second ground of appeal, we see no reason why the plaintiffs should not be put in a position where they can apply to be relieved from their default in serving the second amended complaint. Whether such apjfiication will be granted depends upon the facts shown upon that motion,

Ro vested right is interfered with. The defendant Kalischer or his representative have no more vested rights in a final judgment than every defendant has where the plaintiff is in default. If the cause of action survives, as it does, merely because a defendant dies pending the action, the plaintiff loses no rights which he had before, and upon revival of the action is entitled to the same relief which he could have had were the defendants living.

We think, therefore, that the order should be affirmed, with costs..

Rumset, Williams, Patterson and Parker, JJ., concurred.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements,