Holland Trust Company, Plaintiff, v. The Thomson-Houston Electric Company of New York et al., Defendants. George W. Maslin et al., Appellants; James S. Coleman et al., Respondents

Holland Trust Company, Plaintiff, v. The Thomson-Houston Electric Company of New York et al., Defendants. George W. Maslin et al., Appellants; James S. Coleman et al., Respondents. Holland Trust Co. v. Thomson-Houston Co., 9 App. Div. 473, affirmed. (Argued April 19, 1897; decided May 4, 1897.) Appeal, by permission, from an order of tire Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered November 6, 1896, which reversed an order of Special Term denying a motion to compel the purchasers at a foreclosure sale to complete their purchase. (See 151N. Y. 660.) The following questions were certified to the Court of Appeals: First. Did the Appellate Division have the power to amend the judgment entered in this action on the thirtieth day of October, 1894, nuno pro twnc as of said date, by directing that out of the proceeds of the sale after the payment of the' costs and expenses of the said sale and the fees of the referee, there shall he paid to said John N. Hayward, individually and as trustee, James S. Coleman and Jennette R. Durkee, the sums of money directed to be paid by said order and judgment as so amended % Second. Did .the Appellate Division have the power to direct the purchasers at the sale under the judgment in this action to comply with the terms of sale signed by them, and to pay to the said referee the amount directed to be so paid' by the order appealed from ? . Did the fact that such purchasers, upon the record acting individually and for themselves, in reality acting for a new corporation or a reorganization committee, prevent the court from directing that they pay individually sufficient of the purchase money bid by them at the sale in cash to satisfy such amount ? Francis Lynde Stetson and Charles F. Westbrooh for appellants. David Gerber and A. J. Dittenhoefer for respondents. [MAJORITY] Order of Appellate Division, affirmed on opinion below, with costs, and the questions certified are answered as follows; First question is answered in the affirmative. Second question contains two distinct questions, the first of which is answered in the affirmative and the second in the negative. All concur. Also motion for a rule or order granting a petition to amend the return or the undertaking on appeal herein, or both, so far as may be necessary in respect to the death of John N. Hayward, one of the respondents. Motion granted, without costs. Also motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the time to appeal had expired. Motion denied, without costs.