not have been granted
ex parte, and from the order thereupon entered this appeal is taken. It is claimed to be established that the court has the power to grant such leave
ex parte by the case of
McKernan v. Robinson, 84 N. Y. 105 . An examination of that case shows that, although the order was made
ex parte, no question whatever upon that point was raised, the point adjudicated upon in that case being as to the power of the court to enter such an order
nunc pro tune after the commencement of the suit. This is not an order which may be made by a judge out of court, but it is the leave of the court which must be obtained, and an application must therefore be made to the court. Now, where parties have appeared in an action, it is for the purpose of having notice of all proceedings before the court in such action. This is one of the objects of the appearance, to entitle the party to notice of applications to the court, upon which he has a right to be heard. That a defendant has a right to be heard upon a motion of this description is well settled in the case of
Insurance Soc. v.
Stevens, 63 N. Y. 341 , where it is expressly held that * a plaintiff is not entitled as matter of right to such leave, but the court may, under proper circumstances, absolutely deny the same. This being the condition of the rights of the parties, there is no reason why the practice should be permitted which compels a defendant to be the moving party to set aside an improvident order, when it is the duty of the plaintiff to satisfy the court that it is proper that the order should be granted. In other words, the defendant, where he has the right to answer an application, should not be compelled to be a moving party. The plaintiff should be the moving party and the defendant the answering party. Regularity of practice and an orderly administration of proceedings in an action demand this. In the case of
McKernan v.
Robinson, supra, the right of the court to impose conditions upon granting the order is expressly recognized, and how is the court to know what conditions should be imposed until the defendant has an opportunity to state his side of the case? It may be reasonable to suppose that the court will not impose conditions in granting the order upon the statement of the plaintiff alone, and, if such conditions are to be imposed, they are because of the representations of the defendant, showing a state of circumstances which calls for such action upon the part of the court. Therefore, although the court may possibly have the power to grant such an order
ex parte, it is not in the orderly administration of justice that it should be done, and such practice should not be encouraged. I think, therefore, that the order obtained
ex parte should have been set aside, because it was placing the burden of the motion upon the part of the defendant,—where it did not belong,—and that the plaintiff should have been remitted to the orderly practice which should control an application to the court for the amending of proceedings in an action for all orders which cannot be granted by a judge out of court, and, therefore, naturally
ex parte; namely, an application for relief, which must be upon notice and an opportunity upon the part of the defendant to answer the same. Without at all passing upon the merits, I think that the order should be reversed upon this ground, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.