28 Abb. N. Cas. 245 | N.Y. Sup. Ct. | 1892
We think that the committee had the right to rely upon the defense set forth in the answer that no leave to sue had been granted ; and that in consequence of such defense the city court had no right to proceed in the action ; and that therefore, the order restraining the enforcement of the judgment was properly granted.
It has been, expressly held in a number of cases that the supreme court has authority to restrain the enforcement of asserted claims against a lunatic’s estate, and to compel the claimant to establish his demand as it may prescribe (In re Otis, 101 N. Y. 580 ; In re Beckwith, 87 Id. 503 ; Carter v. Beckwith, 128 Id. 312-16; Code Civ. Pro. §§ 2320, 2321, 2322, 2339).
The court, having the power, was justified under the facts shown in making the order appealed from, and It should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
With respect to the second order appealed from, denying the application for leave to sue the committee
We think, therefore, that this order also should be -affirmed, with $iq costs and disbursements.
Present: Van Brunt, P. J., O’Brien and Ingraham, JJ.