Case Name: SCHNABEL et al. v. HANOVER NAT. BANK OF CITY OF NEW YORK
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1912-10-31
Citations: 137 N.Y.S. 725
Docket Number: 
Parties: SCHNABEL et al. v. HANOVER NAT. BANK OF CITY OF NEW YORK.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 137
Pages: 725–727

Head Matter:
SCHNABEL et al. v. HANOVER NAT. BANK OF CITY OF NEW YORK.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.
October 31, 1912.)
.Discovery (§ 40*)—Examination Before Trial—Facts Necessary to Deifense.
Plaintiff sued to recover the amount of checks, the proceeds of which were improperly paid by defendant bank to others, covering a period of about four years, which plaintiff alleged bore his forged indorsements, and it appeared that the circumstances under which the alleged for geries were made, the relation existing between the persons making the indorsements and plaintiff, his knowledge as to the forgeries, and when it was obtained, were solely within plaintiff’s knowledge, and were essential to the defense. Held, that defendant was entitled to examine plaintiff before trial on the matters indicated to aid in the preparation of its defense.
•For other cases see same tonic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Discovery, Cent. Dig. § 53; Dec. Dig. § 40.*]
Bijur, J., dissenting.
•For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
Appeal from City Court of New York, Special Term.
Action by Richard A. Schnabel and another against the Hanover National Bank of the City of New York. From an order vacating an order for plaintiff’s examination before trial, defendant appeals.
Reversed, and motion denied.
See, also, 137 N. Y. Supp. 727.
Argued October term, 1912, before SEABURY, GUY, and BI-JUR, JJ.
Bernard J. Douras, of New York City (Franklin Bien, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Hirsch, Scheuerman & Limburg, of New York City (Henry L. Scheuerman, of New York City, of counsel), for respondents.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiffs bring this action to recover the amount of certain checks, eleven in number, covering a period of about four years, which checks, the plaintiffs allege, bore their forged indorsements, the proceeds being paid by defendant to persons other than to those entitled to receive them. The defendant interposed a denial to each of the plaintiffs' causes of action, and also a separate defense, which has already been disposed of, so far as this court is concerned. It is clear that the facts regarding the alleged forgeries, the circumstances under which they were made, the relations existing, if any, between the persons making the endorsements and the plaintiffs, their knowledge as to the forgeries and when obtained, etc., are peculiarly and solely within the knowledge of the plaintiffs, and are essen ial to the defendant's defense. We think the necessity for and the right to the examination of the plaintiffs before trial is fully shown in the defendant's moving papers, and the order for such examination should not have been vacated.
Order vacating order for plaintiffs' examination reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with $10 costs, date of examination to be fixed by lower court upon notice.
SEABURY and GUY, JJ., concur'.