Case Name: Charles W. Trotter, Plaintiff, v. William H. Brevoort, Defendant
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1899-12
Citations: 29 Misc. 662
Docket Number: 
Parties: Charles W. Trotter, Plaintiff, v. William H. Brevoort, Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 29
Pages: 662–663

Head Matter:
Charles W. Trotter, Plaintiff, v. William H. Brevoort, Defendant.
(Supreme Court, Kings Special Term,
December, 1899.)
Examination before trial — Application by the plaintiff to have his own testimony taken — Code Civ. Pro., § 872.
Where a plaintiff shows by affidavit the requisites of subdivisions 1 to 4 inclusive of section 872 of the Code of Civil Procedure,, he maiy procure an order for his own examination before trial. The requisite of subdivision 5 of said section, that the person to be examined is about to depart from the State, or is so sick or infirm that he will not be able to attend the trial, applies solely to witnesses, and not to the examination of a party to the action.
Motion to vacate an order for the examination of the plaintiff before trial, obtained at his own instance.
Wilbur Larremore for plaintiff.
Eobert L. Moffett for defendant.

Opinion:
G-aynob, J.:
The affidavit on which the order for the plaintiff's examination was obtained shows the facts required by subdivisions 1 to 4 inclusive of section 872 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and in addition that he is bedridden and will not be able to attend the trial. This latter is a necessary statutory ground for the examination of a witness before trial (sub. 5). But at the end of subdivision 5 is a provision that it " does not apply to a case where the person to be examined is a party to the action." The ground on which this motion is made is that the plaintiff cannot procure his own examination on the ground that he cannot be present at the trial. I do not understand this position. The said subdivision 5 seems to be entirely misunderstood. It imposes restrictions on the right to examine witnesses only. It provides that in order to examine witnesses before trial it must be shown that they cannot be present at the trial because of absence or sickness. But it provides that such restrictions shall not apply to the examination of parties. In deciding whether a party may be examined before trial subdivision 5 is not to be considered at all. It is as though it did not exist. The order to examine a party before trial cannot be vacated because the affidavit on which it was granted shows more than is necessary. There is no reason for being particular to prevent such examinations. The deposition cannot be read on the trial until it be first proved that the party cannot be present from sickness or absence from the state (sec. 882).
Motion denied.