Case Name: Lillian B. Leavitt, as Executrix, etc., of Joseph B. Friedlander, Deceased, Respondent, v. The James F. Scholes Company, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1911-12-29
Citations: 148 A.D. 78
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lillian B. Leavitt, as Executrix, etc., of Joseph B. Friedlander, Deceased, Respondent, v. The James F. Scholes Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 148
Pages: 78–85

Head Matter:
Lillian B. Leavitt, as Executrix, etc., of Joseph B. Friedlander, Deceased, Respondent, v. The James F. Scholes Company, Appellant.
First Department,
December 29, 1911.
Party — decedent’s estate — action by executrix in representative capacity—damages to property purchased by her in carrying on decedent’s business.
Where an executrix, who is carrying on the business of her testator under his name, purchased certain property in the course of the business, she cannot in her representative capacity maintain an action to recover damages for injuries to such property caused in the execution of a contract made by her with the defendant in conducting the business of‘the estate.
• Such cause of action belongs to the executrix individually, and the court on appeal will not amend the summons and coinplaint by striking therefrom the words describing her in her representative capacity for the purpose of sustaining a judgment in her favor.
Laug-hlix, J., and Istg-raham, P. J., dissented, with opinion.
Appeal by the defendant, The James E. Scholes Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 19th day of May, 1911, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 22d day of May, 1911, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.
Decker, Allen & Storm, for the appellant.
Gerald B. Rosenheim, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Scott, J.:
In my opinion it was error to deny the motion to dismiss the complaint. It appears from the complaint and the epitome of the evidence printed in the .case that plaintiff is carrying on the business formerly carried on by her decedent, and is doing so under his name. The property which is the subject of this action was purchased by her in the course of such business. It is well settled, as I understand it, that a cause of action arising-under such circumstances is personal to the executor, and not one belonging to the estate. {Austin v. Munro, 47 N. Y. 360; Willis v. Sharp, 113 id. 591; O'Brien v. Jackson, 167 id. 31.) •This is not a case where the goods are shown to have belonged to the decedent in his lifetime, and the injury was effected after the death. It is not, therefore, one of the class of cases in which it has been held that an action might be brought either by the executor individually or in his representative capacity. In my opinion the judgment and order appealed from should he reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event.
Miller and Dowling, JJ., concurred; Ingraham, P. J., and Laughlin, J., dissented.