From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Haux v. Dry Dock Savings Institution

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 27, 1896
44 N.E. 1099 (N.Y. 1896)

Opinion

Argued October 19, 1896

Decided October 27, 1896

Patrick J. O'Bierne for appellants.

Ferdinand Eidman, Jr., for respondents.


A party is only entitled to a preference upon the calendar, under subdivision 5 of section 791 of the Code of Civil Procedure, where, in one of the capacities mentioned therein, he is the sole plaintiff or the sole defendant. Here other persons are joined as plaintiffs with the executor and executrix, and while those persons may be the executor and executrix, suing in their individual capacities, that fact will not serve to bring the case within the preference as accorded by the Code. What is mentioned with respect to the subject of the action does not warrant us in advancing the cause for a hearing.

The motion is denied, but without costs to either party.

All concur.

Motion denied.


Summaries of

Haux v. Dry Dock Savings Institution

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 27, 1896
44 N.E. 1099 (N.Y. 1896)
Case details for

Haux v. Dry Dock Savings Institution

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM HAUX, as Executor, and MINA HAUX, as Executrix, etc., WILLIAM HAUX…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Oct 27, 1896

Citations

44 N.E. 1099 (N.Y. 1896)
150 N.Y. 581

Citing Cases

Rattle v. Mutual Life Insurance Co.

Under such circumstances the case is entitled to a preference. ( Haux v. Dry Dock Savings Institution, 150…

McCabe v. 1375-1383 Broadway Corp.

It means, on the contrary, that the resident plaintiffs lost their right to a preference when they joined…