Case ID: ad_5/html/0047-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam :", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William Ziegler, Respondent, v. Hugh Lamb, Appellant.
    
      Examination before trial — -it is not allowed to discover a cause of action against persons not pa/rties — the affidavit should be made by the plaintiff.
    
    An examination of a defendant before trial should not be granted to enable his adversary to ascertain whether he has a cause of action against other persons who have not been made parties to the action.
    An affidavit on an application for an order for the defendant’s examination before trial should be made by the plaintiff, and not by the plaintiff’s attorney alone.
    Appeal by the defendant, Hugh Lamb, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 19th day of March, 1896, denying the defendant’s motion to vacate an order for his examination before trial.
    
      Albridge C. Smith, for the appellant.
    
      J. Tredwell Richards, for the respondent.
   Per Curiam :

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 defendant 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 ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion to vacate the order for the examination of the defendant before trial granted, with ten dollars costs.

Present — Van Brunt, P. J., Barrett, Rumsey, O’Brien and Ingraham, JJ.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs.