Hyperlawhypertext legal database Bloom v. Patten 58 N.Y. Super. Ct. 225

← Cases

Bloom v. Patten

58 N.Y. Super. Ct. 225 26 Jones & S. 225 Court N.Y. Super. Ct. Decision date 1890-06-27 English

Delivered by *226 By the Court.—Freedman, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 225
JACOB E. BLOOM, Respondent v. FRANCIS JARVIS PATTEN, et al., Appellants.

Headnote

Discovery of boolcs and papers—Examination of party 10 enable plaintiff to amend his complaint.
The papers on which a motion is made for an order for an examination and discovery of books and papers to enable a party to make or amend a pleading must show the necessity of such an examination. When it appears that the object sought is to obtain information concerning an anticipated defence and other matters beyond the making of the pleading, the order should be denied.
Before Freedman and Truax, JJ.
Decided June, 27, 1890.
Appeal from order for defendant’s examination.
Semple & Cahill, for appellants.
Jacob E. Bloom, in pro. pers. respondent.

The on which the defendants were ordered to appear and submit to an examination before trial and to make a discovery of their books and papers, claimed that such examination and discovery .were necessary to enable the plaintiff to amend his complaint. The test therefore is whether a necessity was shown for the purpose stated. The proof fails to establish such a necessity. From all that appears by the affidavits on both sides it is evident that the plaintiff has sufficient knowledge of the facts constituting his alleged cause of action and that his object is to obtain' information concerning an anticipated defence and to find out whether the cause of action cannot be extended to other parties.

The order should be reversed with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Truax, J., concurred.