Case ID: ad_49/html/0393-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Rumsey, J.:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Edward R. Lazarus, Respondent, v. Wilhelm Schröder, Appellant.
    
      Commission to take testimony — the witnesses’ names must be stated in the moving papers — the statement of a firm name only is insufficient.
    
    A commission will not be issued to take the testimony of witnesses not named in tlie moving papers.
    
      It seems, that if it is sought to examine the members of a firm the names of such members must be stated, and that it is not sufficient to state simply the firm name.
    Appeal by the defendant, Wilhelm Schroder, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Hew York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 5tli day of February, 1900, denying the defendant’s motion for a commission to take testimony.
    
      W. Irving Taylor, for the appellant.
    
      Charles G. F. Wahle, for the respondent.
   Rumsey, J.:

It is fairly to be inferred from the affidavits that the witnesses whose examination by commission is sought are not in the State of Hew York, but are now in the city of Amsterdam, Holland. There can be no question upon the affidavit that their testimony is material. It- is almost a matter of course in such cases to grant a commission to take testimony, and the defendant would be entitled to one, to take the testimony of these material witnesses, but for the fact that he has not given in his affidavit the names of some of the witnesses as required by section 887 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which prescribes that a commission may be issued to examine the witnesses named therein. It is difficult to see just how the witnesses who are not named in the affidavit can be named in the commission to be issued. It is quite true that J. H. Heinfeld is'named, and the commission to take his testimony should be granted. But there is nothing in the papers from which it can be learned who are the persons composing the firm of-Yon Eeghen & Co., sought to be examined. So far as they were concerned the order was correct, but so far as J. H. Heinfeld is concerned the defendant should have had his commission.

The order must, therefore, be reversed and the commissiqp. granted to take the testimony of J. H. Heinfeld, without prejudice to another application by the defendant for a commission to take the testimony of the persons in the firm of Yon Eeghen & Co. upon naming them, and such other persons as may be necessary, without costs of this appeal to either party.

Van Brunt, P. J., Barrett, O’Brien and Ingraham, JJ., concurred.

Order reversed and commission granted to take testimony of Heinfeld, without prejudice to another application by defendant for a commission to take the testimony of the persons in the firm of Yon Eeghen & Co. upon naming them, and such other persons as may be necessary, without costs.