Marine Inv. Co. v. Van Voorhis

• Decision Date: 16 April 1964
• Docket Number: No. F-192,F-192
• Citation: 162 So.2d 909
• Parties: MARINE INVESTMENT COMPANY, a corporation, Petitioner, v. J. C. VAN VOORHIS, as Trustee of Gibbs Corporation, a Bankrupt, Respondent.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 909

162 So.2d 909

MARINE INVESTMENT COMPANY, a corporation, Petitioner, v. J. C. VAN VOORHIS, as Trustee of Gibbs Corporation, a Bankrupt, Respondent.

No. F-192.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 16, 1964.

Bedell, Bedell & Dittmar, Jacksonville, for petitioner.

Smith, Axtell, Howell & Rumph, Jacksonville, for respondent.

STURGIS, Chief Judge.

The petitioner, Marine Investment Company, seeks review by certiorari of an order of the trial court, dated January 16, 1964, denying petitioner's objection to the following interrogatory addressed prior to the filing of the petitioner-defendant's answer in a suit to enforce an alleged promissory note of the petitioner in favor of the respondent-plaintiff, J. C. Van Voorhis, as Trustee of Gibbs Corporation, a bankrupt:

'5. State whether or not the books and records of Marien Investment Company reflect any indebtedness to the Gibbs Corporation and, if so, in what amount, and by reason of what transactions, and the dates of said transactions.'

The petitioner objected thereto on the ground that said interrogatory is improper, irrelevant, and oppressive, and that it calls for a legal conclusion and expression of opinion. The objection was well taken and the order overruling same and requiring petitioner to answer constitutes error for which there is no full, adequate and competent remedy available to petitioner by appeal after final judgment. Under such exceptional circumstances certiorari is proper to review an interlocutory order in an action at law. See Boucher v. Pure Oil Company, 101 So.2d 408 (Fla.App.); Southern Standard Life Insurance Co. v. Holloman, 149 So.2d 887 (Fla.App.).

The right of discovery by use of interrogatories is to be liberally construed to the end that any matter not privileged and which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action must be disclosed. Rule 1.21(b), F.R.C.P., 30 F.S.A. The quoted interrogatory is irrelevant and obviously would require the petitioner to search all its books and records, without limitation as to kind or dates, to ascertain if they reflect any transactions indicating 'any indebtedness [of the petitioner] to the Gibbs Corporation.' It is evident that if any of petitioner's books and records other than those relating to notes payable, or to the specific note in suit, should contain data reflecting any other type of indebtedness to Gibbs Corporation, the same would not be germane to the cause of action on...