In re Darling
New York Supreme Court
Motion to vacate an order obtained by the applicant for the examination of Samuel F. Randolph, for the purpose of ascertaining who are the proper persons to make defendants, and also to enable the plaintiff to frame the complaint.
Read the full summary
Motion to vacate an order obtained by the applicant for the examination of Samuel F. Randolph, for the purpose of ascertaining who are the proper persons to make defendants, and also to enable the plaintiff to frame the complaint. The affidavit on which the order was obtained states among other things that the applicant expects to bring an action for damages for personal injuries against the said Randolph, and shows that he needs to examine him in order to ascertain whether he alone was liable, or whether he was acting for others in the matter constituting the negligence upon which the action…
1Opinion of the Court
Gayitob, J.:
The objection that one who expects to be a party to an action about to be brought may not examine a person he expects to make an adverse party, for the purpose of ascertaining the persons who should be made parties to the action, or obtaining facts necessary to draw his pleadings, is not well taken. Chancery, when a separate court, entertained bills for the discovery of such facts in respect of an expected as well as of an existing action at law; and its jurisdiction passed to the Supreme Court when the court of chancery was abolished (Const. 1846, art. 6, § 3). Such bills of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Glenney v. . StedwellNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
- Merchants' National Bank v. . SheehanNew York Court of Appeals · 1886
- In re E. & H. T. Anthony & Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1899
- In re WeilAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898
3Cited by3 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Allen v. Second Judicial District CourtNevada Supreme Court · 1952
- Lotz v. Standard Vulcanite Pan Co.Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1917
- In re BeschNew York Supreme Court · 1910