From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Reusens v. Arkenburgh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 18, 1910
136 App. Div. 653 (N.Y. App. Div. 1910)

Summary

In Reusens v. Arkenburgh (136 App. Div. 653) the examination was sought upon the issues which the adverse party was bound to establish, and the examination was obviously for the purpose of forcing him to disclose his testimony before trial. Since the argument of this motion the Appellate Division of this department has reversed an order for examination before trial under circumstances that seem to me more like those of the present application than any of the other cases. (Vogel Co. v. Backer Const. Co., 148 App. Div. 639.)

Summary of this case from Kornbluth v. Isaacs

Opinion

February 18, 1910.

Raymond Reubenstein of counsel, for the appellant.

Herman B. Goodstein of counsel, for the respondent.


This action is brought to foreclose a mortgage. The complaint alleges that, by agreements of the parties each year, interest was added to principal. The answer denies this, and the defendant wishes to examine the plaintiff for the purpose of ascertaining, as he says, so that he may prove the same upon the trial, whether the said agreements were in writing or were made orally. The attorney for the defendant states in his affidavit that the examination is material and necessary to the defendant in order to enable him "to properly prepare for the trial of this action and his defense therein." The defendant says that he also desires to ascertain the items of compound interest included in the amount of the bond, to secure which the mortgage was given; but no issue is raised on that head.

It is obvious that the defendant desires to examine the plaintiff for the purpose of ascertaining what he will swear to on the trial, not to elicit testimony to establish an affirmative defense, or to rebut the plaintiff's case. It is well settled that examinations will not be allowed under such circumstances. ( Caldwell v. Glazier, 128 App. Div. 315; Hartog Beinhauer Candy Co. v. Richmond Cedar Works, 124 id. 627.)

The order should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with ten dollars costs.

INGRAHAM, P.J., LAUGHLIN, CLARKE and SCOTT, JJ., concurred

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs.


Summaries of

Reusens v. Arkenburgh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 18, 1910
136 App. Div. 653 (N.Y. App. Div. 1910)

In Reusens v. Arkenburgh (136 App. Div. 653) the examination was sought upon the issues which the adverse party was bound to establish, and the examination was obviously for the purpose of forcing him to disclose his testimony before trial. Since the argument of this motion the Appellate Division of this department has reversed an order for examination before trial under circumstances that seem to me more like those of the present application than any of the other cases. (Vogel Co. v. Backer Const. Co., 148 App. Div. 639.)

Summary of this case from Kornbluth v. Isaacs
Case details for

Reusens v. Arkenburgh

Case Details

Full title:GUILLAUME REUSENS, Appellant, v . OLIVER M. ARKENBURGH, Respondent…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Feb 18, 1910

Citations

136 App. Div. 653 (N.Y. App. Div. 1910)
121 N.Y.S. 353

Citing Cases

Kornbluth v. Isaacs

It is true that in the case before me the moving papers also allege that the plaintiff requires this…