People's Bank of Buffalo v. Brown

• Decision Date: 17 January 1902
• Docket Number: 40.
• Parties: PEOPLE'S BANK OF BUFFALO et al. v. BROWN et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

112 F. 652

PEOPLE'S BANK OF BUFFALO et al. v. BROWN et al.

No. 40.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

January 17, 1902

Norris Morey, for appellants.

N. T M. Melliss, for appellees.

Before ACHESON, DALLAS, and GRAY, Circuit Judges.

DALLAS Circuit Judge.

This was a proceeding under the provisions of the bankruptcy act for the examination of third persons as witnesses and the production by them of books and papers, in which J. Evarts Tracy (appellee) estate at Bay Ridge, Long Island, with a view to the ascertainment of 'the interest of said Andrew Brown (the bankrupt) in said property in any way, directly or indirectly, by a secret trust or otherwise. ' It is true that when the appellee was interrogated respecting this real estate it had not been shown that the bankrupt had any interest in it; but his relationship to the parties, to several transactions concerning it, the history of those transactions, and the communications which ensued between the bankrupt and the witness when the latter was served with a subpoena, did appear, and disclosed a state of facts which justified the investigation. Its object was to determine whether the bankrupt did not have an interest in the property which should be applied to the payment of his debts, and the discovery sought would have been superfluous if, as a condition precedent to its requirements, it had been necessary to independently establish the existence of such interest. Although it is the duty of the court to confine such examinations within the limits to which the purposes for which they are authorized restrict them, yet, where there are circumstances warranting the investigation, no obstruction of it should be permitted which is not justified by law. In re Horgan, 39 C.C.A. 118, 98 F. 414. In this instance the witness claims that his refusals to answer were justified-- First, because the matters to which the examination was directed were 'immaterial and irrelevant to the subject-matter of inquiry in this proceeding' and, second, 'that the same were confidential communications between himself and his clients, which he was forbidden by law to disclose.'

That the first of these claims is inadmissible we have no doubt. The relevancy of any particular matter to the subject under judicial investigation is always for determination by the court, and no witness is entitled to decide for himself that the facts which he is asked to disclose would not tend to prove the existence or nonexistence of the ultimate fact to which it is intended to relate them. Yet this is precisely what this witness has undertaken to do. During his examination, and after he had answered some questions and had refused to answer others, he said 'that the land at Bay Ridge, Kings county, New York, referred to in my testimony and concerning which I have been questioned, is held by me by an absolute title in fee simple; that I do not hold any part of or interest in it for the benefit of said Andrew Brown, or of any one representing him; that I have never sold or conveyed any part of the land at Bay Ridge originally acquired by me, or any land at Bay Ridge now held by me, at the request of said Andrew Brown; that I have never accounted or been accountable, and am not now accountable, directly or indirectly, to him, or to any one representing him, for any proceeds of any of such land sold, or which may be sold; and that said Andrew Brown has no interest, legal or equitable in any such land, or in any proceeds of sale of the same or any part thereof; and I respectfully submit that I am not subject to other or further examination in respect of any such matters, for that the same are wholly immaterial and irrelevant to the...