First Nat. Bank v. Shuler
Opinion of the Court
This appeal arises out of the following facts: The plaintiff in this action, being a judgment creditor of Isaac C. Shuler, in his lifetime commenced a creditor’s action to set aside certain conveyances and assignments made by him to Mary A. Booth and Elizabeth N. Shuler, and a general assignment for the benefit of creditors, made by the judgment debtor to Hicks B. Waldron, all of whom were made defendants in this action. The defendants Isaac C. Shuler and Elizabeth N. Shuler answered in the action, taking issue upon the allegations of the complaint therein. After the issue was joined, and before the trial of the action, Isaac C. Shuler died, leaving a last will and testament, wherein he named Elizabeth N. Shuler as sole executrix, and made her the sole devisee and legatee of all of his estate, real and personal; whereupon the plaintiff obtained an order of the court for leave to file and serve a supplemental complaint. That complaint, in addition to the allegations of the original complaint, alleged the death of Isaac C. Shuler, mailing execution and probate of his will, and the appointment and qualification of Elizabeth N. Shuler as sole executrix of that will. That motion was made, and the relief granted, upon notice to all the surviving defendants in the action. No issue was taken by the defendants upon the allegations of the supplemental complaint, and the same were, therefore, admitted. The cause was tried before Hon. Charles R. Ingalls, as sole referee, who, after hearing the case, made his report, wherein, among other things, he found and adjudged several of the conveyances and assignments made by Isaac 0. Shuler, and his final assignment for the benefit of creditors, fraudulent and void, and directed judgment setting, aside such conveyances and assignments, and adjudging them void as against the plaintiff, as judgment creditor. To some portions of the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the report of the referee, the defendant Elizabeth N. Shuler, .by her counsel, excepted. Upon the filing of the report, an application was made by the plaintiff to the special term for a confirmation of the same, and for judgment upon
We think the learned trial judge at special term was clearly right in denying the application of Elizabeth N. Shuler to be brought in as executrix. Within the authorities referred to by him, she was properly before the court in her representative capacity after the filing of the supplemental complaint. There can be but little doubt but that, if she had so desired, she could, after the service of the supplemental complaint upon her, have interposed an answer in her representative capacity, without any further leave of the court to do so. She was, therefore, for all the beneficial purposes of her defense as executrix, before the court, and entitled to be heard in that capacity in this action. That being so, there could be no good reason for allowing her, after the case had been finally disposed of, to present new issues, and render the work already accomplished in the case, perhaps, entirely nugatory. The order, so far, at least, as it refuses her application to be made defendant, should be affirmed, with costs.
We have also carefully examined the various questions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in reference to a modification of the interlocutory judgment, as asked for by them, as well as their
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.