Jenning v. Gunnison

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Jenning v. Gunnison

126 N.Y.S. 582

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 5, 1911

StatusPublished

This text of 126 N.Y.S. 582 (Jenning v. Gunnison) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jenning v. Gunnison, 126 N.Y.S. 582 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

GAVEGAN, J.

The action was to recover commissions for services alleged to have been rendered by the plaintiff as factor for the' account of the defendant. Thé answer, after denying absolutely the allegations in the complaint that there was an agreement between the parties, sets up payment as a first separate defense, and money loaned as a second separate defense and counterclaim. Plaintiff’s reply to the counterclaim is a general denial.

The order obtained by the defendant, directing the plaintiff to appear. for examination before trial, is based on defendant’s affidavit that the testimony sought is material and necessary to enable defendant to prepare for trial, for the reason that he is entirely ignorant of the agreement alleged in the complaint. The mere statement of defendant’s ignorance of the agreement alleged, in view of the unqualified denial thereof in his answer, is not sufficient under the authorities to entitle him to an examination of the plaintiff before trial. Caldwell v. Glazier, 128 App. Div. 315, 112 N. Y. Supp. 655; Merill & Baker v. Woolworth, 53 Misc. Rep. 253, 103 N. Y. Supp. 57.

Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with $10 costs.

BRADY, J., concurs. GIEGERICH, J., concurs in result.

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

GAVEGAN, J.

The action was to recover commissions for services alleged to have been rendered by the plaintiff as factor for the' account of the defendant. Thé answer, after denying absolutely the allegations in the complaint that there was an agreement between the parties, sets up payment as a first separate defense, and money loaned as a second separate defense and counterclaim. Plaintiff’s reply to the counterclaim is a general denial.

The order obtained by the defendant, directing the plaintiff to appear. for examination before trial, is based on defendant’s affidavit that the testimony sought is material and necessary to enable defendant to prepare for trial, for the reason that he is entirely ignorant of the agreement alleged in the complaint. The mere statement of defendant’s ignorance of the agreement alleged, in view of the unqualified denial thereof in his answer, is not sufficient under the authorities to entitle him to an examination of the plaintiff before trial. Caldwell v. Glazier, 128 App. Div. 315, 112 N. Y. Supp. 655; Merill & Baker v. Woolworth, 53 Misc. Rep. 253, 103 N. Y. Supp. 57.

Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with $10 costs.

BRADY, J., concurs. GIEGERICH, J., concurs in result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 N.Y.S. 582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jenning-v-gunnison-nyappterm-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack