Case Name: In the Matter of the Application of Sophie D. Schoeller, to Take and Perpetuate the Testimony of George W. Slingerland, Manager and Director, and William K. Ryan, Treasurer of the Metropolitan Express Company; Sophie D. Schoeller, Respondent; George W. Slingerland, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1902-07
Citations: 74 A.D. 347
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Application of Sophie D. Schoeller, to Take and Perpetuate the Testimony of George W. Slingerland, Manager and Director, and William K. Ryan, Treasurer of the Metropolitan Express Company. Sophie D. Schoeller, Respondent; George W. Slingerland, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 74
Pages: 347–355

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Application of Sophie D. Schoeller, to Take and Perpetuate the Testimony of George W. Slingerland, Manager and Director, and William K. Ryan, Treasurer of the Metropolitan Express Company. Sophie D. Schoeller, Respondent; George W. Slingerland, Appellant.
Examination before suit, to enable the applicant to frame his complaint, of a manager and director of a corporation, alleged to be his successor in a business, in the conduct of which the party seeking the examination received personal injuries, denied.
A person injured by an express wagon bearing the name “ Century Express,” brought an action against one Slingerland to recover damages for such injuries, upon the theory that he was doing business under the name of the “Century Express.” Slingerland interposed an answer, in which he denied liability or that, at the time the person was injured, he was doing business under the name of the Century Express. The injured person thereupon discontinued the action and made a motion to take the testimony of Slingerland for the purpose of enabling her to frame a complaint in an action to recover damages for the inj uries sustained by her.
The moving affidavit alleged that the Metropolitan Express Company had succeeded to the business formerly carried on by Slingerland, and that the New York Transportation Company claimed to have succeeded the Metropolitan Express Company, but that she was ignorant of and unable to ascertain when the Metropolitan Express Company succeeded to the business of Slingerland or when the transportation company succeeded the Metropolitan Express Company, and that it was, therefore, necessary and material for her, before bringing an action, to examine Slingerland, who was the manager and one of the directors of the Metropolitan Express Company, in order to ascertain “who is the proper party to be made defendant.”
Eeld, that the applicant was not entitled to an examination for the purpose stated.
Hatch and O’Brien, JJ., dissented.
Appeal by George W. Slingerland 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 22d day of May, 1902, denying his motion to vacate an order for his examination as a party for the purpose of enabling the petitioner to frame her complaint.
Ralph G. Miller, for the appellant.
Louis S. Levy, for the respondent.

Opinion:
McLaughlin, J.:
On the 16th 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 puiv • pose 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 Hew York Transportation Company claimed to have succeeded to the business of the Metro-: politan 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 in order to ascertain " who is the proper party to be made 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 plaintiff 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 he had for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the plaintiff in a proposed action has a cause of action. (Matter of Anthony & Co., 42 App. Div. 66 ; Matter of White, 44 id. 119 ; Long Island Bottlers v. Bottling Brewers, 65 id. 459.) This is precisely what was held in each of the cases cited, and in Matter, of Anthony c& Go. it was also held that a "proposed defendant must be definitely and not tentatively named in the affi davit (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 ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with ten dollars costs.
Van Brunt, P. J., and Ingraham, J., concurred.