Case Name: ANN DUFFY, Plaintiff v. MICHAEL DUFFY, Defendant and Respondent
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1889-01-07
Citations: 24 Jones & S. 593
Docket Number: 
Parties: ANN DUFFY, Plaintiff v. MICHAEL DUFFY, Defendant and Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Superior Court of the city of New York
Volume: 56
Pages: 593–594

Head Matter:
ANN DUFFY, Plaintiff v. MICHAEL DUFFY, Defendant and Respondent.
Revivor—Motion for under § 757 Code Civil Procedure as amended by chapter 542, Laws of 1879, as to denial of on mere ground of delay.
Before Sedgwick, Ch. J., Freedman and Ingraham, JJ.
Decided January 7, 1889.
The action was one at law. The original plaintiff died more than ten years before a motion to revive was made. The motion was denied at Special Term on the ground that too much time had elapsed; and an order was entered denying the motion.
E. B. & C. P. Cowles, attorneys, and of counsel for moving parties, appellants.
John E. Parsons, attorney, and with II. B. Closson, of counsel for respondent.

Opinion:
The Court (Freedman, J., writing)
held " that under Coit v. Campbell, 82 N. Y. 509, the motion was properly denied; but that the late case of Holsman v. St. John, 90 N. Y. 461 (which was decided without noticing Coit v. Campbell) was in apparent if not in real conflict with Coit v. Campbell; that the late case should be followed unless some distinction could be drawn between them; that the only distinction the court was able to draw is, that the first case was in equity and the latter an action-at-law; that it might still be a debatable question, notwithstanding Greene v. Martine, 21 Hun 136, affirmed, 84 N. Y. 648, whether a distinction between an action in equity and one at law should be maintained ; and that in view of the circumstances and the great importance of the question, it was in the interest of all parties to affirm the order so that the question involved might be squarely presented to the court of appeals, and put at rest by that court."
The order was affirmed.
Sedgwick, Ch. J., and Ingraham, J., concurred.