Logan v. Greenwich Trust Co.

Headnote

logan v. Greenwich Trust Co., 144 App. Div. 372 , affirmed.

Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered May 9, 1911, which reversed an order of Special Term granting a motion to vacate a warrant of attachment, an order purporting to revive and continue an action against defendant, and a judgment entered against defendant.

The following questions were certified:

“ 1. Did the Supreme Court have power to make the order herein dated the 15th day of January, 1910, purporting to continue the action against the Greenwich Trust Company of Greenwich, Connecticut, as administrator of the goods, chattels and credits of George P. Sheldon, deceased, and amending the summons and pleadings accordingly ?

“ 2. Did the Supreme Court have power to make the order herein dated the 15th day of January, 1910, directing service of the summons herein upon the Greenwich Trust Company of Greenwich, Connecticut, as administrator of the goods, chattels and credits of George P. Sheldon, deceased, by publication or without the state ?

“3. Did the Supreme Court have power to make the order herein dated the 26th day of April, 1910, directing the entry of judgment herein in favor of the plaintiff and against the Greenwich Trust Company of Greenwich, Connecticut, as administrator of the goods, chattels and credits.of George P. Sheldon, deceased ?

“á. A valid attachment having been granted in this action on the ground that the defendant was a nonresident of the state of New York, and a valid levy having been made under such attachment by the sheriff of the county of New York, did the attachment fall by reason of the death of the defendant before service of the summons or the commencement of the publication thereof, where, within thirty days after the granting of the warrant of attachment, service of the summons by publication, under an order duly granted, was commenced against the defendant who had been substituted in the action in the place and stead of the deceased defendant, said substituted defendant being the personal representative of the deceased defendant ? ”