[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 609

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 610

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 611 Upon all the facts set out in the record on appeal we think the court had jurisdiction to determine that the respondent Abigail Hancock Bishop was a proper party defendant and to bring her into the action.

None of the questions certified, however, embraces all the facts necessary to support such an order and there is no question certified which can be answered Yes or No, and which would determine the appeal.

The appeal should, therefore, be dismissed, with costs.

HISCOCK, Ch. J., POUND, McLAUGHLIN, CRANE, ANDREWS and LEHMAN, JJ., concur; CARDOZO, J., not voting.

Appeal dismissed. *Page 612