
    W. Rutger J. Planten, Suing for Himself and Other Stockholders of the National Nassau Bank of New York, Respondent, v. Edward Earl et al., Appellants, Impleaded with Others.
    
      Planten v. Earl, 174 App. Div. 254, affirmed.
    (Argued March 5, 1917;
    decided March 20, 1917.)
    Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered July 10, 1916, which affirmed an order of Special Term sustaining demurrers to separate defenses set up in the several answers to a stockholder’s action against directors of the National Nassau Bank of New York for alleged negligent management. The answers of the defendants deny the acts of negligence and misconduct alleged in the complaint, and then set up the defense that by vote of the shareholders the bank was placed in voluntary liquidation and a liquidating committee appointed; that since such action was taken the board of directors by reason thereof has had no power or control over the bringing of actions by the hank, but that such power is vested in the liquidating committee.
    The following question was certified: “The parties appellant and respondent having stipulated that this action was begun on the 24th day of May, 1915, is the first separate and affirmative defense set up in the answers of the defendants Earl, Munro, Bell and Weed sufficient in law upon the face thereof ? ”
    
      Selden Bacon for appellants.
    
      William D. Gaillard, Macdonald Be Witt and W. J. Gibson for respondent.
   Order affirmed, with costs, and question certified answered in the negative; no opinion.

Concur:. Hiscock, Oh. J., Chase, Collin, Hogan, Cardozo and Crane, JJ. Not sitting: McLaughlin, J.  