Majority
p. 65(5 App. Div. 47) ZIEGLER v. LAMB. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. May, 1896.) Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and BARRETT, RUMSEY, O’BRIEN, and INGRAHAM, JJ.
Headnote
Discovery—Examination of Parties before Trial.Examination of a party before trial is not permissible to enable the adverse party to ascertain whether he has a cause of action against other persons not parties.
Appeal from special term, New York county.
Action by William Ziegler against Hugh Lamb. From an order denying a motion to vacate an order for the examination of defendant before trial, defendant appeals. Reversed.
Albridge C. Smith, for appellant.
J. Tredwell Richards, for respondent.
This order should be reversed. The plaintiff makes no affidavit upon which to obtain the order for the examination of the defendant before trial. His attorney alone makes the affidavit. But, further, it clearly appears from the attorney’s affidavit that he does not need the defendant’s examination for the purpose to which he refers, namely, the purpose of amending his complaint by setting up the real owners of the land. The defend
p. 66
ant admits that he has the legal title to the property, and that is sufficient. There is no provision allowing the examination of a party to an action before trial, so as to enable his adversary to ascertain whether he has a cause of action against other persons not parties. The avowed object of this examination is to discover whether or not such persons exist, and we know of no principle that would justify the granting of such an application.
The order, should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion to vacate the order for the examination of the defendant before trial granted, with $10 costs.