Case Name: NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE & TRUST CO. v. IVES et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1895-06-14
Citations: 34 N.Y.S. 300
Docket Number: 
Parties: NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE & TRUST CO. v. IVES et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 34
Pages: 300–301

Head Matter:
(87 Hun, 339.)
NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE & TRUST CO. v. IVES et al.
(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.
June 14, 1895.)
Pleading—Litigation between Defendants.
In an action-by-a testamentary trustee for the distribution of rents re.ceived from the trust estate before the will was,set aside, one of the defendants cannot assert a claim to a part of the fund by virtue of a contract made with another defendant, as defendants can litigate between themselves only such matters as are connected with the cause of action set out in the complaint. ' - ' :
Appeal from special term, New York county.
Action by the New York Life Insurance & Trust Company, as trustee under the last will and testament of Francis W. Lasak, deceased, against Margaret S. Ives and others, impleaded with others. From an order striking out portions of an answer as irrelevant and redundant, defendants Cornelia D. Chauvet and Albert L, Chauvet appeal.
Affirmed.
Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and O’BRIEN and FOLLETT, JJ.
Abram Kling, for appellants.
Charles F. MacLean, for respondent.

Opinion:
FOLLETT, J.
The fund which the plaintiff holds as trustee, and for the distribution of which this action is brought, did not * arise out of the agreement executed June 16, 1892, but from the rents of real estate received before the will of Francis W. Lasak was set aside. Undoubtedly, any of the defendants may allege that he or she is entitled to all or some share of the apparent interest of a codefendant in the fund by reason of having acquired title thereto or a lien thereon by agreement. But that is not what the appellants seek to do. They set up in their answer that by a contract dated June Í6, 1892, Margaret S. Ives, a codefendant, agreed to pay them $180,000, in consideration of their having assigned to her their interest in the estate. This is an independent cause of action, having no relation to the fund which the plaintiff holds in its hands, Had the fund in the suit arisen out of the contract of June 16th, a different question would have been presented. Section 521 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not authorize defendants to litigate, as between themselves, independent cross demands, not connected with the cause of action set forth in the complaint. Smith v. Hilton, 50 Hun, 236, 2 N. Y. Supp. 820.
The order should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.