Opinion
June 21, 1949.
Present — Peck, P.J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Van Voorhis, JJ.
The complaint shows on its face that plaintiff was a volunteer as to appellant and had no authority to represent her. Indeed it is quite clear that his purported representation of her was against her will. The proceeding instituted by plaintiff in the Surrogate's Court was not the kind of representative or class action which would support his claim he represented appellant or was entitled to compensation from her. Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, the motion to vacate the warrant of attachment granted and the complaint dismissed.