
    CHARLES J. QUIMBY, Respondent, v. HORACE B. CLAFLIN and Others, Appellants.
    
      Amendment to complaint — a cause of action barred by iho statute of limitations - cannot be allowed to be inserted as an a/mendment.
    
    Appeal from an order made at a Special Term, allowing the plaintiff to amend his complaint.
    The court at General Term said: “ The order appealed from gave leave to the plaintiff to amend his complaint by adding, as a third cause of action, a further claim against the defendant of thirty- . four thousand dollars.
    “The claim was barred by the statute of limitations. We arq1' of opinion that the order was unauthorized. The defendants have a right to the bar of the statute. It is conceded that the plaintiff could not maintain an original action on the claim. The claim is gone. Does it alter the rights of the parties that the plaintiff happens to have another litigation with defendant, into which it is proposed to incorporate this claim. On the theory of the plaintiffs, the pendency of an action between parties, it may be on a single promissory note, would keep alive all contract claims against either party during the time consumed by the litigation, at least to the extent of making it discretionary with the court to allow the prosecution of such claims by means of an amendment to the pending action. We think this cannot be. The uniform current of authority is opposed to such a doctrine.” ^Weston v. Worden, 19 Wend., 648; Willink v. Renwick, 22 id., 608; Williams v. Cooper, 1 Hill, 637.)
    
      Robert 8. Green, for the appellants.
    
      I. T. Williams, for the respondent.
   Opinion by

Cullen, J.

Present — Barnard, P. J., Dykman and Cullen, JJ.

Order reversed, with costs and disbursements.  