Case ID: nys_129/html/0760-01.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

DENNIS v. STOCK, GRAIN & PROVISION CO. OF NEW YORK, Limited.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
    May 19, 1911.)
    Discovery (§ 61)—Examination of Corporate Officers.
    Where, after an order for the examination of officers of defendant company was made, such officers could not be found, and a further order was made staying all proceedings on the part of defendant pending the production and examination of such officers, the vacation of the first-named order on defendant’s motion, while the stay was in force, was improper.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Discovery, Cent. Dig. § 75; Dec. Dig. § 61.]
    Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
    Action by Fred M. Dennis against the Stock, Grain & Provision Company of New York, Limited. From an order vacating an order for examination of defendant before trial, plaintiff appeals.
    Reversed.
    See, also, 130 App. Div. 880, 114 N. Y. Supp. 1123.
    Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and CLARICE, SCOTT, MILLER, and DOWLING, JJ.
    Edmund F. Harding, for appellant.
    Terence J. McManus, for respondent.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep'r Indexes
    
   PER CURIAM.

Appeal from order vacating order of examination of defendant by two of its officers.

The order for examination was made on October 20, 1910, and was served on defendant; but it was found impossible to procure the attendance of the officers to be examined, because plaintiff did not know where to find them. Defendant’s attorneys declined to accept service on behalf of said officers, or to produce them for examination, or to disclose their addresses, except to say that one of them was in Plainfield, N. J. Under these circumstances an order was made staying all proceedings on the part of defendant pending the production and examination of said officers. This order was máde on notice, and was in full force and effect when the motion to vacate the order of examination was made. That motion was certainly a proceeding in the action, and as such was forbidden to be taken. On this ground alone, without considering any other question (upon which we express no opinion), the motion to vacate should not have been entertained.

Order appealed from is reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with $10 costs.