Case Name: Elizabeth O'Gorman, Appellant, v. James R. O'Gorman, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1895-12
Citations: 99 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 605
Docket Number: 
Parties: Elizabeth O’Gorman, Appellant, v. James R. O’Gorman, Respondent.
Judges: Merwin, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 99
Pages: 605–605

Head Matter:
Elizabeth O’Gorman, Appellant, v. James R. O’Gorman, Respondent.
Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.— Appeal from an order of the Oswego Special Term, which required the plaintiff to deliver to the defendant sworn copies of her bank pass books, verified, described in the petition, within five days after the service of a copy of the order, or at her option give the defendant a written authorization directed to the Oswego City Savings Bank and the Oswego County Savings Bank, authorizing the officers of the said banks to permit the defendant and his attorney to inspect and make a copy of the bank pass books of the laintiff, now in the possession of the anks.—

Opinion:
Hardin, P. J.:
There was some conflict in
the affidavits used at the Special Term, and the judge presiding has resolved the conflict in favor of the petitioner. It appears that the laintiff had an account in the respective anks mentioned in the petition, and that the pass books used in connection with the account have been returned to the savings banks, and that the banks have a custom of retaining pass books after dosing accounts with a customer, andaré disinclined to allow inspection of such pass books without the consent of the party in whose favor they were made while the account was current. The bank officers' affidavits furnish no good reason why the pass books should not be inspected. It is apparent from the affidavit of the plaintiff that she has no serious or important objection to the inspection of the pass books, or to a copy being delivered thereof. The Special Term was called upon under all the proofs before it, to exercise its discretion in respect to whether an inspection should be ordered. We are not prepared to say that the Special Term exceeded its discretion in the premises. (Sibley v. New York Times Pub Co , 80 Hun. 561; Finlay v. Chapman, 119 N. Y. 404.) We think the order should be affirmed with ten dollars costs. Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Martin and
Merwin, JJ., concurred.