Case Name: Irving L. Ernst and Others, as Trustees in Bankruptcy of Dudley P. Humphrey and Others, Individually and as Copartners, Composing the Firm of J. M. Fiske and Company and the Firm of J. M. Fiske and Company, Respondents, v. Berthold Levi, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1911-12-01
Citations: 148 A.D. 280
Docket Number: 
Parties: Irving L. Ernst and Others, as Trustees in Bankruptcy of Dudley P. Humphrey and Others, Individually and as Copartners, Composing the Firm of J. M. Fiske and Company and the Firm of J. M. Fiske and Company, Respondents, v. Berthold Levi, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 148
Pages: 280–283

Head Matter:
Irving L. Ernst and Others, as Trustees in Bankruptcy of Dudley P. Humphrey and Others, Individually and as Copartners, Composing the Firm of J. M. Fiske and Company and the Firm of J. M. Fiske and Company, Respondents, v. Berthold Levi, Appellant.
First Department,
December 1, 1911.
Discovery—examination of party before trial—action by trustees in bankruptcy — examination regarding affirmative defenses.
Where in an action by the trustees in bankruptcy of a firm of stockbrokers to recover a balance due from a customer on purchases and sales of stock and on an account stated, the defendant denies all the material allegations of the complaint, the plaintiffs are entitled to examine him before trial respecting all matters relevant to the causes of action set up in the complaint, but they are not entitled to examine him before trial respecting the facts set forth in a separate defense alleging that the defendant was induced by false representations to enter a joint venture to operate in certain stock and that the bankrupt firm did not perform its part of the “pool” agreement, nor are plaintiffs entitled to ail examination respecting the facts set forth in another defense alleging that the pool was illegal and contrary to public policy.
Iu.q-RAHam, P. J. and Laughliu, J., dissented in part.
Appeal by the defendant, Berthold Levi, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office óf the clerk of the county of New York on the 8th day of August, 1911, denying the defendant’s motion to vacate an order for his examination before trial.
Edmond E. Wise of counsel [Wise & Seligsberg, attorneys], for the appellant.
Stanleigh P. Friedman of counsel [Hays, Hershfield & Wolf, attorneys], for the respondents.

Opinion:
Clarke, J.:
Plaintiffs are the trustees in bankruptcy of J. M, Fiske & Co., a stock brokerage firm, and sue to recover $45,910.51, being a balance due to the said firm on account of purchases and sales of stocks and securities made by said firm for and on account and at the request of the defendant. Plaintiffs also claim upon an account stated between themselves as the said trustees and defendant.
The answer denies all the material allegations of the complaint, sets up two separate defenses, a partial defense and counterclaim and two separate counterclaims. The order authorizes a general examination of the defendant, requiring him to submit to an examination and testify concerning the matter stated in the affidavits and relevant to the issues in this action.
The plaintiffs are entitled to the examination of the defendant respecting all matters relevant to the causes of action set up by them and material and necessary to prove in support thereof. We think that so far as the defenses are concerned, plaintiffs are endeavoring to obtain a preliminary cross-examination of the defendant as to his claims and are not endeavoring to obtain testimony material and necessary to their own cause of action for the purpose of introducing the same upon the trial.
The pleadings and affidavits indicate that the defendant must go upon the stand to establish his affirmative defenses and can be then subjected to cross-examination. We do not think that the papers make out a case justifying a preliminary cross-examination as to such matters of defense.
The order appealed from should be modified by limiting the examination to the matters set forth in the complaint and material and necessary to support the allegations thereof, and as so modified affirmed, without costs to either party.
Scott and Miller, JJ., concurred; Ingraham, P. J., and Laughlin, J., dissented.