
    Robert Holmes, Individually and as Trustee et al., Respondents, v. Hugh N. Camp, Jr., Individually and as Executor of and Trustee under the Will of Hugh N. Camp, Deceased, et al., Defendants, and Edward C. Smith, Appellant.
    
      Holmes v. Camp, 186 App. Div. 676, affirmed.
    (Argued November 19, 1919;
    decided December 9, 1919.)
    Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered March 7, 1919, which affirmed an order of Special Term granting a motion for leave to serve a supplemental summons and complaint and to make the statutory trustees of a dissolved corporation parties defendant.
    The following questions were certified: “ 1. In a representative action brought by a stockholder of a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Missouri, to compel the defendants to account for property of the corporation wrongfully diverted from the corporation, where it appears that during the pendency of the action the corporation was dissolved pursuant to the statutes of Missouri set forth in the papers on appeal, is the plaintiff entitled to continue the action without malting the statutory trustees in dissolution parties thereto?
    
      “ 2. If the foregoing question be answered in the negative, was. the plaintiff, on notice to the statutory trustees in dissolution, entitled to an order making such trustees parties defendant?
    
      “ 3. In a representative action brought by a stockholder of a corporation holding ninety-seven per cent of the shares of the capital stock of a corporation Organized under the laws of the state of Missouri, to compel the defendants to account for property of the subsidiary corporation wrongfully diverted from the subsidiary corporation where it appears that during the pendency of the action the subsidiary corporation was dissolved pursuant to the statutes of Missouri set forth in the papers on appeal, is the plaintiff entitled to continue the action without making the statutory trustees in dissolution parties thereto?
    “ 4. If the foregoing question be answered in the negative, was the plaintiff, on notice to the statutory trustees in dissolution, entitled to an order making such trustees parties defendant?
    “ 5. Was the appellant Smith a party aggrieved by the order made' at Special Term on April 8, 1918, bringing in as parties defendant the foreign statutory trustees of the Doe Run Lead Company, formerly a Missouri corporation and now dissolved? ”
    
      Joseph M. Proskauer, Carlisle J. Gleason and Wesley S. Sawyer for appellant.
    
      Samuel F. Moran and Louis B. Grant for respondents.
   Order affirmed, with costs; first and third questions certified answered in the negative; second, fourth and fifth questions in the affirmative; no opinion.

Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Chase, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ.  