lished in said paper once in each week for six successive weeks [or other time, according to the statute or order], the first pub

day, the
day, the

FORM No. 425.

Affidavit of mailing.92

M. N., being duly sworn, says:

I. That he is [the managing clerk in the office of Q. R.] plaintiff's attorney herein, whose office is in the city of

II. That, on the 19 93 [which must be on or before the first day of publication4], deponent deposited in the post-office at [naming office designated in the order95] a copy of the summons, complaint, and order for publication, copies of which are hereto annexed, contained in a securely-closed and duly post-paid wrapper, * directed to the defendant Y. Z. at [here

name the place and address specified in the order— or, if several defendants were served, say], sets of copies of the summons, complaint, and order for publication, copies of which are hereto annexed, each contained in a securely-closed and duly postpaid wrapper, respectively directed to the several defendants hereinafter named, at the places and addresses below stated [here name each defendant so served, with the address used in the order and in mailing].

A. B., being duly sworn, says that he is over the age of twentyone years and resides at

that on the

day of

19 at [specify particular locality as in case of per

sonal service within the State], in the city of

and State of

in the county of he served the summons in this action upon Y. Z., one of the defendants named therein, by delivering to and leaving with said Y. Z. a copy of said summons together with a copy of the complaint in this action and a copy of the order98 for the service of said summons granted by Mr. Justice J. K., dated 19; that the copy of said summons so delivered to and left with Y. Z. had a notice thereunto appended of which a copy is hereunto annexed marked "A." Deponent further says that he knew the person so served to be Y. Z. mentioned and described in said summons as a defendant in this action.

ARTICLE V.

EXAMINATION TO ASCERTAIN UNKNOWN OR ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS.1

[The power of the court and the practice are stated in connection with the general subject of Examination Before Trial, and before suit brought.]

FORMS.

427. Affidavit to obtain examination of defendant, before service of complaint, to enable plaintiff to bring in others as codefendants.

428. Another Form-to enable plaintiff to frame complaint and name correctly unknown de

fendants, in action to prevent perversion of trust funds, and to set aside corporate election. 429. Another Form - to enable plaintiff to bring in new codefendants in action to set aside expulsion from stock exchange.

FORM No. 427.

Affidavit to obtain examination of defendant, before service of complaint, to enable plaintiff to bring in others as co-defendants.2

[Title of court and action.]

[Venue.]

A. B., being duly sworn, says:

I. That he is the [plaintiff above-named.3]

II. That this action was commenced [here state condition of the cause, for instance, thus] by the service of summons on the defendant Y. Z., on the 19 but no

day of

1 The examination cannot be had until the action has been commenced, prior to action brought, the testimony of an expected party may only be had to perpetuate testimony. See Matter of Tweedie Trading Co., 105 App. Div. 426, 94 N. Y. Supp. 167, 35 Civ. Pro. Rep. 6; Matter of Schlotterer, 105 App Div. 115, 93 N. Y. Supp. 895; Matter of Schoeller, 74 App. Div. 347. 77 N. Y. Supp. 614; Matter of Anthony, 42 App. Div. 66, 58 N. Y. Supp. 907. And see p. 534, supra, on same subject. Matter of Weil, 25 App. Div. 173, 49 N. Y. Supp. 133, seems to have been overruled by the later decisions. In Matter

of Schoeller, Hatch and O'Brien, JJ., dissenting, considered that both an expected party, and a person having the desired information, should be compelled to submit to an examination for the purpose of disclosing the name of the person against whom plaintiff's cause of action exists.

It was stated in Matter of Anthony, supra, that "the proposed defendant must be definitely and not tentatively named in the affidavit, and that it must also be made to appear that the applicant has a cause of action against such specific person." While this case has been severely criticized (Matter of Schoeller, supra), its authority has not been overturned; it would seem,

2 See page 534 of this volume as to examination before commencing action.

3 If not made by plaintiff, state

reasons. Ziegler r. Lamb, 5 App.
Div. 47, 40 N. Y. Supp. 65; Orne t.
Green, 74 App. Div. 404, 77 N. Y.
Supp. 475.

complaint has been served, nor has service of a copy been demanded.

III. That the names and residences of all the [present] parties to this action [if any are unknown, add], so far as their names or residences can be ascertained, and the facts as to whether they have appeared by attorney or otherwise, or not, are as follows: PLAINTIFFS (appearing by Q. R., of their attorney,

whose address is street, in the city of

State of

): A. B., of No.

; C. D., of the town of

, county of

and

Defendants: W. X., of [etc., as above], has appeared by S. his attorney, whose office address is

;

T., of
W. Y., of No. [etc., as above], has appeared in person; Y. Z., of
No. [etc., as above], has not appeared.

[Or, if very numerous, may more conveniently annex and refer to a tabular schedule.]

IV. That this action is brought [here state the nature of the action and the substance of the judgment demanded therein].

V. [If a resident of the State is to be required to attend in another county than that of his residence] That the said [name of defendant], whose examination is desired in

county, has an office for the regular transaction of business in person at street, in the town of

No. county.5

and said

[If a non-resident, and leave is desired to serve him in any other county than that where the order is to require him to attend for examination, state the reason.]

[Or where defendant is a corporation] That the defendant whose examination is required is a corporation, having its office at That the names of the officers [or, directors]

therefore, that in applications after action commenced to join other defendants, they must be definitely identified by description (though tentatively named by a fictitious name in the summons), and that it must appear that a cause of action exists against the individual who fits the description. See Ziegler v. Lamb, 5 App. Div. 47, 40 N. Y. Supp. 65.

4 If the address of any party is not known, show ineffectual inquiry made to ascertain it. See Simmons v.

Hazard, 65 Hun, 612, 20 N. Y. Supp. 508.

5 Code Civ. Pro., § 886.

thereof, whose testimony is material and necessary for plaintiff in the prosecution of his case, are [naming them and their residences.]

VI. That deponent does not know the names of the necessary defendants designated in the summons as John Doe and Richard Roe [and is not able to frame his complaint], and that it is necessary for him, in order to obtain knowledge of said names. [and of the facts necessary to frame his complaints] that he should have an order to examine the defendants above-named, so that he can obtain from them the information necessary for the purpose aforesaid."

[Or, where plaintiff desires to join others as co-defendants] That the plaintiff intends to make other persons parties defendant to said action as soon as their names are ascertained, but plaintiff does not know the names of the said persons, and that the testimony of the defendant [name] is material and necessary to enable plaintiff to ascertain said names for the reason [stating reason.]

VII. [May add other facts to show a case within N. Y. Code Civ. Pro., §§ 870, 871.10]

[If it is necessary to examine or inspect the contents of corpor ate books and papers, they should be specified in the affidavit with the reasons for the necessity, and a direction to produce inserted in the order.11]

VIII. That no previous application for examination of said Y. Z. has been made herein [except, etc.12]

6 N. Y. Code Civ. Pro., § 872, authorizes examination of officers and directors, servants, agents, or employees of a corporation. Reichmann v. Manhattan Co., 26 Hun, 433.

7 In such case the affidavit must state the name of the officer or director of such corporation whose testimony is material and necessary. Williams t. W. U. Tel. Co., 47 N. Y. Super. Ct. 380.

8 See Chapter on PLEADING for the rules and other forms as to examination to enable to plead.

9 Such an application was sustained in Baas v. Pain, 24 N. Y. Supp. 555, 54 St. Rep. 80.

10 Before issue it is not necessary to express an intent to use the deposition upon the trial of the action. Brisbane v. Brisbane, 20 Hun, 48.

11 As an incident to an examination of the witness, an inspection of a corporation's books and papers may be compelled under an order for the examination of an officer. N. Y. Code Civ. Pro., § 872, subd. 7. But not unless the party is a corporation. Matter of Sands, 98 App. Div. 148, 90 N. Y. Supp. 749.

12 See p. 116 of this volume, paragraph 84, and also p. 170.