Case Name: Metropolitan Trust Company of the City of New York, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Alexander McDonald, Deceased, Respondent, v. Edmund K. Stallo et al., Appellants, Impleaded with Others
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1915-06-15
Citations: 215 N.Y. 710
Docket Number: 
Parties: Metropolitan Trust Company of the City of New York, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Alexander McDonald, Deceased, Respondent, v. Edmund K. Stallo et al., Appellants, Impleaded with Others.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 215
Pages: 710–711

Head Matter:
Metropolitan Trust Company of the City of New York, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Alexander McDonald, Deceased, Respondent, v. Edmund K. Stallo et al., Appellants, Impleaded with Others.
(Argued June 1, 1915;
decided June 15, 1915.)
Metropolitan Trust Co. of JST. Y. v. Stallo, 166 App. Div. 649, affirmed.
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered March 12, 1915, which reversed an order of Special Term sustaining a demurrer to the complaint on the grounds that there is a misjoinder of parties plaintiff, and also a misjoinder of causes of action. The . plaintiff, the Metropolitan Trust Company of the City of New York, sues both as an individual and as the administrator of the goods, chattels and credits of Alexander McDonald, deceased. The condition of the estate of said McDonald, as disclosed by the complaint, is a very complicated one, and the professed purpose of the present action is to clear up and disentangle these complications, to determine the proper disposition of certain funds now in plaintiff’s hands, to obtain an adjudication as to the sums for which it is justly chargeable, and to permit it to account therefor. The defendants embrace all persons who appear to have any claim, to any portion of the estate.
The following questions were certified: “1. Is there a misjoinder of parties plaintiff ? 2. Are there separate causes of action alleged in the complaint that have been improperly- united ? 3. Does the complaint state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action ? ”
Charles Haldane for appellants. .
John C. Milburn and Walter F. Taylor for respondent.

Opinion:
Order affirmed, with costs; first and second questions certified answered in the negative, third question in the affirmative; no opinion.
Concur: Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., Hiscock, Chase, Cuddeback, Hogan, Miller and Seabury, JJ.