Case ID: ny_235/html/0572-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Edward Dubied & Co., Appellant, v. The Pennsylvania Railroad Company, Respondent.
    
      Practice — railroads — when motion to amend title to action so as to bring in director-general of railroads as a party defendant in an action against a railroad company properly denied.
    
    
      Dubied & Co. v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 204 App. Div. 865, affirmed.
    (Argued February 27, 1923;
    decided March 20, 1923.)
    Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered December 8, 1922, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion to amend the title of this action by,inserting the name of the director-general of railroads as a party defendant.
    The following questions were certified: “ 1. Was James C. Davis, agent designated by the president, barred by the action of his attorneys from pleading the defense of the Statute of Limitations contained in section 206 (a) of the Transportation Act of 1920?
    “ 2. Was the appearance of the defendant by attorneys authorized to represent both it and the' agent of the president and after service of the summons on the agent of the president in a suit where both were proper parties, an appearance on behalf of said agent?
    
      “ 3. Would the joinder of James C. Davis, agent appointed by the president, introduce a new party into the action who would have to be served with a supplemental summons or would such joinder merely bring in a party whose name had been omitted but who was already before the court?
    “ 4. Was the relation in this case between the director-general and the carrier such that the carrier was merely the successor of the director-general, the appearance of whom was necessarily on behalf of the director-general as well as itself?
    
      “ 5. Does the limitation contained in section 206 (a) of the Transportation Act of 1920 affect a cause of action which did not mature until April 3, 1922? ”
    
      
      Henry Eseher for appellant.
    
      George B. Allen and Harold L. Allen for respondent.
   Order affirmed, with costs; first, second and fourth questions certified answered in the negative; third and and fifth questions not answered; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin and Andrews, JJ. Crane, J., concurs on ground that this is not a motion for substitution of. parties, but to bring in a new party.