Case Name: Bertha Koehler, as Executrix, etc., Respondent, v. Samuel D. Sewards, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-01-10
Citations: 5 Silv. Sup. 425
Docket Number: 
Parties: Bertha Koehler, as Executrix, etc., Respondent, v. Samuel D. Sewards, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Silvernail's Supreme Court Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 425–426

Head Matter:
Bertha Koehler, as Executrix, etc., Respondent, v. Samuel D. Sewards, Appellant.
Supreme Court, First Department, General Term,
January 10, 1890.
Deposition. Examination before trial.—An affidavit, made by the attorney upon information and belief alone, where the party has ample knowledge of the facts sought to frame his complaint, is insufficient to warrant an order for the examination of the defendant before trial.
Appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate an order requiring the defendant to appear and be examined before trial.
Emanuel I. Myers, for respondent.
Wales F. Severance, for appellant.

Opinion:
Daniels, J.
The object for which the examination of the defendant has been directed to be taken is to obtain facts to insert in the complaint to present a cause of action. The claim is made that on loans of money made at different times by the defendant to the testator usurious rates of interest were exacted and paid. And it is proposed to examine the defendant to obtain an account of such loans, and the interest reserved and received. But a fundamental difficulty appears in the way of sustaining the order. And that is that the affidavit has been made by the attorney, and its important statements rest upon information and belief alone. Such an affidavit has been so often held to be insufficient for an order of this nature as almost to render it needless to cite authorities to sustain the position. It was distinctly so held in Barnard v. Kobbe, 54 N. Y. 516, 520-521, and in Steuben County Bank v. Alberger, 78 Id. 252. Beyond that, the answer of the plaintiff herself in the suit of Wortmann against herself indicates the fact to be that she is possessed of ample information concerning the loans so as to be able to frame her complaint without the examination of the defendant.
The order should be reversed, with- ten dollars costs and also the disbursements.
Van Brunt, P. J., and Brady, J., concur.