Case Name: Federal International Banking Company, Respondent, v. George A. Touche et al., Copartners under the Firm Name of Touche, Niven & Co., Defendants, and John B. Niven et al., Appellants; Equitable Trust Company of Baltimore, Respondent, v. George A. Touche et al., Copartners under the Firm Name of Touche, Niven & Co., Defendants, and John B. Niven et al., Appellants; Ultramares Corporation, Respondent, v. George A. Touche et al., Copartners under the Firm Name of Touche, Niven & Co., Defendants, and John B. Niven et al., Appellants
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1928-04-13
Citations: 248 N.Y. 517
Docket Number: 
Parties: Federal International Banking Company, Respondent, v. George A. Touche et al., Copartners under the Firm Name of Touche, Niven & Co., Defendants, and John B. Niven et al., Appellants. Equitable Trust Company of Baltimore, Respondent, v. George A. Touche et al., Copartners under the Firm Name of Touche, Niven & Co., Defendants, and John B. Niven et al., Appellants. Ultramares Corporation, Respondent, v. George A. Touche et al., Copartners under the Firm Name of Touche, Niven & Co., Defendants, and John B. Niven et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 248
Pages: 517–518

Head Matter:
Federal International Banking Company, Respondent, v. George A. Touche et al., Copartners under the Firm Name of Touche, Niven & Co., Defendants, and John B. Niven et al., Appellants. Equitable Trust Company of Baltimore, Respondent, v. George A. Touche et al., Copartners under the Firm Name of Touche, Niven & Co., Defendants, and John B. Niven et al., Appellants. Ultramares Corporation, Respondent, v. George A. Touche et al., Copartners under the Firm Name of Touche, Niven & Co., Defendants, and John B. Niven et al., Appellants.
(Argued March 28, 1928;
decided April 13, 1928.)
James Marshall, Louis Marshall and Abraham Shamos for appellants.
Martin Conboy and Edwin N. Moore for Federal International Banking Company, respondent.
H. H. Breland, Emory R. Buckner and Lowell Turrentine for Equitable Trust Company of Baltimore, respondent.
Herbert R. Limburg and Lionel S. Popkin for Ultramares Corporation, respondent.

Opinion:
In each action order affirmed, with costs; question certified answered in the negative. Held, that section 50, subdivision 1, of the Civil Practice Act, in so far as it prescribes a limitation in actions to recover damages for malpractice, refers to actions to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from the misconduct of physicians, surgeons and others practicing a profession similar to those enumerated.
Concur: Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Crane, Andrews, Lehman, Kellogg and O'Brien, JJ.