Case Name: In re SCHOELLER
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1902-07-08
Citations: 77 N.Y.S. 614
Docket Number: 
Parties: In re SCHOELLER.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 77
Pages: 614–620

Head Matter:
(74 App. Div. 347.)
In re SCHOELLER.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
July 8, 1902.)
1. Examination before Trial.
Under Code Civ. Proc. § 872, authorizing examination of witnesses and parties before trial, a prospective plaintiff is not entitled to preliminary examipation prior to the commencement of an action to ascertain against which of certain persons he has a right of action.
Hatch and O’Brien, JJ., dissenting.
f 1. See Discovery, vol. 16, Cent. Dig. § 49.
Appeal from special term, New York county.
Application by Sophie D. Schoeller for an order for the examination of George W. Slingerland for the purpose of enabling applicant to frame a complaint. From an order denying a motion to vacate an order granting the application, said Slingerland appeals. Reversed.
Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and HATCH, McLAUGHLIN, O’BRIEN, and INGRAHAM, JJ.
Ralph G. Miller, for appellant.
Louis S. Levy, for respondent.

Opinion:
McLAUGHLIN, J.
On the i6th of July, 1901, the applicant was run into by an express wagon upon which appeared the name "Century Express," and she subsequently brought an. action against one George W. Slingerland to recover damages for personal injuries sustained, upon the theory that he, doing business under the name of the Century Express, was responsible for them. Slingerland interposed an answer, in which he denied his liability, or that he was, at the time the applicant was injured, doing business under that name. The plaintiff thereupon discontinued the action, and subsequently obtained an order for the examination of Slingerland for the purpose of enabling her to frame a complaint in an action which she proposed to bring against the one responsible for her injuries, if that fact could be ascertained from such examination. The affidavit upon which the order was granted set out, in addition to the foregoing facts, that the Metropolitan Express Company had succeeded to the business formerly carried on by Slingerland, who is its manager, and one of its directors, and that the New York Transportation Company claimed to have succeeded to the business of the Metropolitan Company, but that she was ignorant of and unable to ascertain when the Metropolitan Company succeeded to the business of Slingerland, or when the Transportation Company succeeded the Metropolitan Company, and for that reason it was necessary and material for her, before bringing an action, to examine Slingerland, in order to ascertain "who is the proper party to be made a defendant." But these facts manifestly did not entitle her to the order directing the examination of Slingerland, and for that reason the motion to vacate should have been granted. The purpose of the examination is apparent. It is to ascertain whether the plain tiff has a cause of action against the Metropolitan Company or against the Transportation Company, and the rule is well settled that an examination of this character cannot be had for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the plaintiff in a proposed action has a cause of action. In re Anthony & Co., 42 App. Div. 66, 58 N. Y. Supp. 907; In re White, 44 App. Div. 119, 60 N. Y. Supp. 702; Long Island Bottlers' Union v. Bottling Brewers' Protective Ass'n, 65 App. Div. 459, 72 N. Y. Supp. 976. This is precisely what was held in each of the cases cited and in Re Anthony it was also held that a "proposed defendant must be definitely, and not tentatively, named in the affidavit (Code Civ. Proc. § 872), and that it must also be made to appear that the applicant has a cause of action against such specific person."
The order appealed from, therefore, must be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with $10 costs.
VAN BRUNT, P. J., concurs.