Case Name: August Immig, App'lt, v. John Hoesloop, Resp't
Court: Brooklyn City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1891-05-26
Citations: 38 N.Y. St. Rep. 490
Docket Number: 
Parties: August Immig, App’lt, v. John Hoesloop, Resp’t.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 38
Pages: 490–490

Head Matter:
August Immig, App’lt, v. John Hoesloop, Resp’t.
(City Court of Brooklyn, General Term,
Filed May 26, 1891.)
Depositions—Examination before trial.
An order for the examination of a plaintiff before trial to enable the defendant to prepare his answer and prove his defense should not be granted where it is apparent from the affidavit that the answer will be a general denial, and the only information of any value can be obtained through a bill of particulars.
Appeal from order denying motion to vacate an order for the examination of the plaintiff before trial.
Action to recover upon an alleged promise by defendant to guaranty the payment of sales of goods that might be made to. one Fritz Schnatmeyer, not exceeding $600.
The affidavit on which the order for examination was obtained stated that defendant had no knowledge of any such promise, for none was made or intended to be made, and that he could not imagine on what circumstance or in what way such promise was inferred, and that he had no knowledge of the state of the accounts between plaintiff and Schnatmeyer.
Ayres & Walker, for app’lt; Barnum & Rebhann, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate a prior order for the examination of the plaintiff before trial. The application for the examination was made by the defendant before issue was joined, in order to prepare his answer and to prove his defensa It is apparent from the affidavit of the defendant that the answer will be a general denial, and that any information given by the plaintiff will in no wise help him in preparing his answer. If the defendant desired a statement of the account he could obtain a bill of particulars. We think that the application was premature, and that the examination was not necessary.
Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted.
Clement, Ch. J., and Osborne, J., concur.