Citizens' National Bank v. Bang

112 A.D. 748, 99 N.Y.S. 76, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 765
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 2, 1906
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 112 A.D. 748 (Citizens' National Bank v. Bang) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Citizens' National Bank v. Bang, 112 A.D. 748, 99 N.Y.S. 76, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 765 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1906).

Opinion

Smith, J.:

The action is brought against two indorsers upon a promissory note; that is, two indorsers only were served. One of tlie indorsers, Frederick W. Bergstein, died. By the order appealed from, upon the application of the plaintiff, his executrix has .been substituted.

The substitution seems clearly' to be authorized by section 760 of [749]*749the Code of Civil Procedure. (See, also, Douglass v. Ferris, 138 N. Y. 207; Eaton v. Alger, 47 id. 345.)

Appellant insists, however, that she could only be brought in by an order requiring that she be served with supplemental summons and complaint under section 760 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By section 121 of the Code of Procedure it was provided that no action should abate by death if the cause' of action survive, and further: “ In case of death, marriage, or other disability of a party, the court on motion, at any time'within one.year thereafter, or afterwards on a supplemental complaint, may allow the action to be ; continued by or against his representative or successor in interest.” By section 757 of the Code of Civil Procedure this provision was thus modified: “ In case of the death of a sole plaintiff or defendant, if the cause of action- survives or -continues, the court must, upon a supplemental summons arid complaint, or, in its discretion, upon a motion, if made within one year after the decedent’s death, in a proper case, allow or compel the action to be continued, by or against his representative, or successor in interest.” (Laws of 1876, chap. 448, § 757, as amd. by Laws of 1877, chap. 416.) Throop, in his note, after giving the source of this'section as section 121 -of the Code of Procedure, says: “ The second sentence amended, so as to make the supplemental summons and complaint the primary means of reviving the action, as there is no means provided for serving an order without the State, whereas service of a supplemental summons is fully provided for by § 453.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Thorburn v. Mitchell
193 A.D. 174 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1920)
Skinner v. Sullivan
112 Misc. 365 (New York Supreme Court, 1920)
National Council of Knights & Ladies of Security v. Scheiber
163 N.W. 781 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
112 A.D. 748, 99 N.Y.S. 76, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 765, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/citizens-national-bank-v-bang-nyappdiv-1906.