Hughes v. Russell
Opinion
This is an appeal by the executors of the deceased defendant-from an order of the Kings County Special Term continuing the action- against them as sucn executors and granting plaintiff- leave to file a supplemental complaint.
The action was brought to recover damages for personal- injuries alleged to have been sustained through the defendant’s negligence. It was commenced on October 16, 1903. Issue was joined by the service of defendant’s answer on ¡November 24, 1903. The case was tried in March of 1904, and plaintiff obtained a verdict. An ' appeal was taken to this court from the judgment entered upon the verdict, which was reversed in April, 1905 (104 App. Div. 144). The defendant died May 22, 1905, and letters testamentary issued to the appellants on June 7, 1905; the order appealed- from con-, tinning the action against'them was granted December 15, 1905. Unless the cause of action comes within one of the exceptions • stated in section 764 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it abated upon the death of the defendant and the order appealed from was unauthorized. This section as first amended provided': “After verdict,, report or-decision in an action to recover damages for' a personal injury, the action does not abate by the death of a party, but- the subsequent proceedings are the same as.in a case where the cause of action survives.” (Laws of 18Y6, chap. 448, § 764, as amd. by Laws of 1881, chap. 277.) It has been held several times under this ' section that it did not have the effect of preventing the abatement of an action in which a judgment had been rendered but reversed before the death of the party. (Smith v. Lynch, 8 N. Y. St. Repr. 341 ; Carr v. Fischer, 119 N. Y. 117 ; Felsey v. Jewett, [746]*74634 Hun,'ll.) In 1890
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
113 A.D. 744 (Hughes v. Russell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.