From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tanenbaum v. Hilborn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 1, 1899
44 App. Div. 89 (N.Y. App. Div. 1899)

Opinion

October Term, 1899.

Benno Loewy, for the appellant.

Abram I. Elkus, for the respondent.

Present — VAN BRUNT, P.J., RUMSEY, PATTERSON, O'BRIEN and INGRAHAM, JJ.


The order appealed from vacating an order for the examination of the defendant before trial must be reversed. The papers upon which the vacated order was granted were sufficient. The only criticism which appears to be made of them is that they do not show that the testimony of the defendant is necessary to the establishment of the cause of action set out in the complaint. The defendant was sued for the breach of a contract in and by which he agreed with the plaintiff's assignors that they should procure as his agents insurance upon merchandise for a period of five years from a certain date, and also agreed that he would not procure insurance through any other broker than the plaintiff's assignors, who should also be entitled to procure any insurance required in addition to that specifically referred to in the contract.

There are two breaches of the contract assigned: First, the non-employment of the plaintiff's assignors; second, the employment of other brokers. Under the allegations of the complaint and the issues as made by the answer, it is material for the plaintiff to show the breach of the contract by the defendant's employment of other brokers. The facts of such employment are peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendant. The plaintiff showed in his affidavit that he had no means of ascertaining who the other brokers were, except by the examination of the defendant. The order for the examination was expressly limited to those facts, and such considerations were presented to the justice who granted the order of examination, as authorized him to make it with the limitation contained therein.

It is unnecessary to examine or comment upon the numerous authorities cited by counsel on both sides on this appeal, for, under the circumstances of this case, an examination of the defendant was proper. The order requiring it should be reinstated, and the order vacating it reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.


Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and order for examination reinstated.


Summaries of

Tanenbaum v. Hilborn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 1, 1899
44 App. Div. 89 (N.Y. App. Div. 1899)
Case details for

Tanenbaum v. Hilborn

Case Details

Full title:MOSES TANENBAUM, Appellant, v . MAX HILBORN, Respondent

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

Date published: Oct 1, 1899

Citations

44 App. Div. 89 (N.Y. App. Div. 1899)
60 N.Y.S. 406

Citing Cases

Tanenbaum v. Lippmann

It is not necessary, however, that both defendants should be examined, if one is possessed of the information…

Tanenbaum v. Lindheim

The plaintiff should resort to that means of information before calling upon the defendants to be examined…