Majority
Headnote
Stipulation authorizing an amended complaint — only authorizes sueh a pleading as the court could allow.Plaintiff’s authority to serve an amended complaint was derived only from the stipulation. Doubtless, that authorized the service of such an amended pleading as the court at Special Term could properly, on motion of the plaintiff, have allowed. Ve think it would not have been in furtherance of justice for a court to have authorized the amended complaint served. It was not, in fact, an amended complaint, but an abandonment of the original cause of action and the substitution of a new and different one. The substantial cause of action set out in the original complaint was to set aside a conveyance of land, made by the defendants, as fraudulent and void, and as executed in pursuance of a conspiracy between them, to appropriate and convert such land to tlieir own use, and to prevent the same from being applied to the claims of creditors; and the complaint asked to recover said land for the estate or its proceeds. The amended complaint sets out the statutory action against defendants authorized by article 2, title 3, chapter 15 of the Civil Code, on account of real estate devised to them. This is an entirely different action. Had plaintiff tried the cause under the original complaint, and been defeated, the judgment would not have barred his action, under the statute, to recover as a creditor against defendants on account of real estate devised to them.
We think that the stipulation did not contemplate or authorize the abandonment of the original cause of action and the substitution of a new one; and, hence, without considering other objections made to the complaint, the order should be reversed, with costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with costs.
Present — Putnam and Herrick, JJ.
Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and printing and other disbursements, and motion granted.