
    Eissing Chemical Company, Appellant, v. People’s National Bank of Brooklyn, Respondent.
    
      Pleading — when judgment against plaintiff in another action may he pleaded as separate defense.
    
    
      Eissing Chemical Co. v. People’s Nat. Bank of Brooklyn, 205 App. Div. 89, affirmed.
    (Submitted November 20, 1923;
    decided December 4, 1923.)
    Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered April 6, 1923, which reversed an order of Special Term denying a motion for leave to amend the answer by pleading • as a special defense a judgment against plaintiff rendered in a different action involving the same issues and granted said motion.
    The following questions were certified:
    “ 1. Is the defendant, appellant, entitled to an order permitting it to amend its answer by pleading as a separate defense a certain judgment, docketed in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on or about the 17th day of June, 1919, together with the proceedings and papers incident thereto, .in an action in the Supreme Court, state of New York, county of Kings, wherein the Eissing Chemical Company, the plaintiff in this action, was plaintiff, and William F. Eissing and others, were defendants?
    “ 2. Is the judgment entered on or about the 17th day of June, 1919, in an action brought in the New York Supreme Court, Kings county, wherein the Eissing Chemical Company, the plaintiff in this action, was plaintiff, against William F. Eissing. and others, as defendants, if pleaded as a separate defense and duly established, sufficient in law to constitute a defense to the cause of action set forth in the complaint herein? ”
    
      Bernard C. McKenna for appellant.
    
      Marshall McLean for respondent.
   Order affirmed, with costs; first question certified not answered and second question answered in affirmative; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ.  