p. 515several matters of defense, among which was the statute of limitations.
Chapman, Scott & Crowell, for the appellant.
I. From the pleadings, the following appear to .he the issues in this case, viz.: 1. Was the assignment of the share and interest in the contract with the Ohio and Mississippi Railroad Company, represented by the scrip certificate So. 38, made by the plaintiff to the defendant, as alleged in the complaint, so made for the purpose and with the reservation of interest and ulterior title in the plaintiff, there set forth ? And did the defendant receive it under an obligation to account to the plaintiff for the disposition or avails of the interest so assigned; or, was it transferred for th'e purpose, and in the absolute and unqualified manner, as far as the plaintiff was concerned, stated in the answer ? 2. Independent of the legal transfer and assignment, had the Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Company, at the date of the assignment, the equitable title and interest in the certificaté set forth in the answer, or was it true, as alleged in the complaint, “that the said Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Company had no property therein ?” 3. If the plaintiff retained any such interest in the certificate as would have entitled him to the accounting demanded in this action, in case (as the complaint alleges) the filial accounting between the defendant and the receiver of the trust had been made, without the • making of any claim to said share by said receiver, or the taking into account the amounts paid as installments on said share; then were the said amounts taken to account, and the value of said share fully settled and accounted for by the defendant, as alleged in the answer ? Or, was the said share “ left by the receiver of the said Ohio • Life Insurance and Trust Company in the possession of said bank, (the defendant,) free of any claim
p. 517T. C. T. Buckley, for the respondent.
I. By the express terms of section 271 of the Code, a reference may be ordered. (1.) When the trial requires the examination of a long account on either side. (2.) Or when the taking, of an account is necessary for the information of the court before judgment.H. Irrespective of the pleadings, the plaintiff’s affidavit brings this case within the provisions of the section. The affidavit of the defendants’ cashier, does not, as did the affidavit referred to in the opinion of Allen, J., in the case of Kain v. Delano, in the Court of Appeals, “ circumstantially and fully deny .the statement” contained in the moving papers, but merely states in general terms that the “ investigation will require the decision of difficult questions of law.” This is insufficient; the questions should be specified. (Anonymous case, 5 Cowen, 423. Dewey v. Field, 13 How. 439 .)III. This is not in any respect like the case of Kain v. Delano, recently decided in the Court of Appeals, on which the defendants seem to rely. . In that cáse the plaintiff’s claim was a written contract for the recovery of a single sum of money, and the defense rested on a single fact, entirely distinct from any accounts. This is an equitable action to redeem stock, and by its very nature involves, and necessarily requires, the examination of and taking an account. Such account, in any aspect of the case, is necessary to be taken before judgment. As between the plaintiff and the Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Co., for the purpose of ascertaining whether the company had the interest they claimed. As between the receiver of the Ohio Life Insurance and Trust' Co., the plaintiff and the defendants, to ascertain whether the amount for which the plaintiff concedes the defendants had the right to hold the certificate in question has ever been discharged. As between the plaintiff and defendants, to ascertain whether the payments referred to in the fourth article of the complaint,
p. 519be taken before judgment, and, I think, makes tlie case referable. And if so, the discretion of the judge granting the motion should not be reviewed on appeal.
[First Department, General Term, at New York,
April 3, 1871.
I am for affirming the order.
Order affirmed.
Ingraham, P. J., and Cardozo and Geo.