Herrman v. J. F. Tapley Co.

New York Supreme Court

Herrman v. J. F. Tapley Co.

64 Misc. 466, 118 N.Y.S. 803

DecidedSeptember 15, 1909

StatusPublished

This text of 64 Misc. 466 (Herrman v. J. F. Tapley Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Herrman v. J. F. Tapley Co., 64 Misc. 466, 118 N.Y.S. 803 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Giegerich, J.

The order in question requires the defendant’s president and the defendant’s secretary to appear for examination with reference to the issues raised by the answer, and especially with reference to the identity of the defendant “ as the negligent tort feasor herein.” The order does not purport to require the company to be examined, but it is directed against its officers individually. ít is well settled that there is no authority for the examination of an officer of a corporation as such, apart from the examination of the corporation itself. Jacobs v. Mexican Sugar Refining Co., 112 App. Div. 657; Shumaker v. Doubleday, Page & Co., 116 id. 302. As was said by the court in Jacobs v. Mexican Sugar Refining Co., supra, 658: “ The proper practice in such a case is to authorize the examination of the party, and then, the party being a corporation, the order should provide that the information is to be elicited by an examination of certain of its officers.” As this was not done in the present case, the motion to vacate the order must be granted.

Motion granted, with ten dollars costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Giegerich, J.

The order in question requires the defendant’s president and the defendant’s secretary to appear for examination with reference to the issues raised by the answer, and especially with reference to the identity of the defendant “ as the negligent tort feasor herein.” The order does not purport to require the company to be examined, but it is directed against its officers individually. ít is well settled that there is no authority for the examination of an officer of a corporation as such, apart from the examination of the corporation itself. Jacobs v. Mexican Sugar Refining Co., 112 App. Div. 657; Shumaker v. Doubleday, Page & Co., 116 id. 302. As was said by the court in Jacobs v. Mexican Sugar Refining Co., supra, 658: “ The proper practice in such a case is to authorize the examination of the party, and then, the party being a corporation, the order should provide that the information is to be elicited by an examination of certain of its officers.” As this was not done in the present case, the motion to vacate the order must be granted.

Motion granted, with ten dollars costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 Misc. 466, 118 N.Y.S. 803, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herrman-v-j-f-tapley-co-nysupct-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack