Leavitt v. James F. Scholes Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Leavitt v. James F. Scholes Co.

148 A.D. 78, 132 N.Y.S. 1033, 1911 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 146

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 29, 1911

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 148 A.D. 78 (Leavitt v. James F. Scholes Co.) 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

Leavitt v. James F. Scholes Co., 148 A.D. 78, 132 N.Y.S. 1033, 1911 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 146 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinions

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. ■

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

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. ■

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 A.D. 78, 132 N.Y.S. 1033, 1911 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leavitt-v-james-f-scholes-co-nyappdiv-1911.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack