has refused to give his-address are sufficient; to justify stieh an order, as it is important to défendantto know such address "in order'd» take measures to examine plaintiff before answering and to move for security in" case he is a non-resident.
Appeal from order" requiring plaintiff’s attorney to disclose the address bf plaintiff, and" in default thereof staying the action.
The action was brought in July, 1890, to recover upon a check drawn May 24,1887, payment of which was stopped and the check protested for non-payment May 25, 1887.
The check was drawn to the order of one 0. H. Thompson, and it is alleged in the complain t that the same was endorsed by said Thompson and-thereafter came into the possession of' the plaintiff.
Plaintiff’s attorney having refused to disclose his client’s address, except that he resided in Queens county, defendant procured the order appealed from upon an affidavit which, set forth such refusal and that such disclosure was necessary to determine whether the place of trial designated was the proper county and whether plaintiff is a resident or non-resident of the state, and also that defendant may cause papers to be served on plaintiff for his examination before trial and answer. The affidavit also stated that:
“ The action is brought upon a check drawn in 1887, the consideration whereof failed, and payment of which was stopped and the check protested the day after it was drawn. One of the defenses herein will be that the plaintiff took such check (if at all) with notice thereof, and that this suit is being prosecuted for the person in whose' hands said check was protested, and it is necessary to have an examination of the plaintiff for the defendant to prepare his answer and for trial herein.”
Gieorge Ai Stearns, for app’lt.; Elbert Orandall, for resp’t.
This is an appeal from an order requiring the plaintiff’s attorney to disclose the plaintiff’s address, and in default thereof staying the action.
The power of the court to grant such an order is too well established to require argument Walton v. Fairchild, 24 N. Y. State Rep., 314; Tidd’s Am. Notes, 533, 534; Ninety-nine Pl'ffs v. Vanderbilt, 1 Abb. Pr., 193 ; Worton v. Smith, 6 J. B. Moore, 110.
Such an order is discretionary, and should not be reversed unless there is a clear case of abuse of discretion.
We think it was important to the defendant to know the address of the plaintiff in order that he might take measures to examine him before answering, and to move for security in case the plaintiff is a non-resident.
The facts disclosed are sufficient to justify the order, which is affirmed, with costs.
Barnard, P. J., and Dykman, J., concur.