
    J. Albert Fish, Respondent, v. Adrian Iselin, Jr., Appellant.
    
      Fish v. Iselin, 174 App. Div. 855, affirmed.
    (Argued November 21, 1916;
    decided December 5, 1916.)
    Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered June 2, 1916, which affirmed an order of Special Term sustaining a demurrer to a defense set up in the answer. This is an action upon a policy of Lloyds insurance for $15,000 issued by 100 subscribers doing business under the name of Subscribers at United States “Lloyds,” upon a yacht named Senta, alleged to have belonged to the plaintiff and to have been destroyed by fire. The fifth separate defense sets up, as a bar to this action, a former judgment entered in favor of the defendant in the Municipal Court of the city of New York in the eighth Manhattan district, in a case wherein this plaintiff was plaintiff and one Douglas F. Cox, a subscriber, was defendant.
    The following question was certified: “Does the fifth separate defense set up in the second amended answer on its face state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the cause of action set forth in the complaint ? ”
    
      Harold S. Deming and Harry A. Richards for appellant.
    
      Jesse W. Tobey for respondent.
   Order affirmed, with costs; question certified answered in the negative; no opinion.

Concur: Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Cuddeback, Cardozo and Pound, JJ. Absent: Hogan, J.  