Webb v. Samuels

• Decision Date: 16 March 1915
• Parties: WEBB v. SAMUELS et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

227 F. 948

WEBB v. SAMUELS et al.

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

March 16, 1915

Root Clark, Buckner & Howland, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Elkus Gleason & Proskauer, of New York City, for defendants.

AUGUSTUS N. HAND, District Judge.

The defendant Oppenheimer has again applied for an extension of time to answer the complaint in the above cause, upon the ground that his answer may tend to incriminate him. I had thought that the complainant could avoid raising this question by entering into the stipulation which I suggested in my former memorandum, but inasmuch as he insists that doing so will impose upon him a great additional burden in proving his case, I have decided to pass upon the direct issue between the parties, and have reached the conclusion that the defendant must answer the complaint or submit to whatever loss or inconvenience is involved by his default.

There is no doubt under the decision cited by the defendant Oppenheimer that he will not be compelled to make discovery under circumstances where it may appear that the discovery would tend to incriminate him. Rule 30 (198 F. xxvi, 115 C.C.A. xxvi) of the present equity rules provides:

'The defendant in his answer shall in short and simple terms set out his defense to each claim asserted by the bill omitting any mere statement of evidence and avoiding any general denial of the averments of the bill, but specifically admitting or denying or explaining the facts upon which the plaintiff relies, unless the defendant is without knowledge, in which case he shall so state, such statement operating as a denial. * * * '

Rule 58 (198 F. xxxiv, 115 C.C.A. xxxiv) provides for discovery upon filed interrogatories. I cannot see that any question of discovery is involved upon the present motion merely by reason of the fact that there is a general prayer for discovery in the bill.

The following quotations from Story's Equity Pleading and the old English case of Brownsword v. Edwards, 2 Vesey, 246, cited by counsel for the complainant, seem to be in point.

Story's Equity Pleading (10th Ed.) p. 456:

'But the objection (i.e., to discovery) is strictly confined to the point of the discovery sought, and does not affect the jurisdiction of the court to grant relief. For a party shall not protect himself against relief in a court of equity by alleging that, if he answers the bill filed against him, he must subject himself to the consequences of a supposed crime, although the court will not force him by his own oath to subject himself to punishment. Therefore, in the case of a bill to inquire into the validity of deeds upon a suggestion of forgery, the court has entertained jurisdiction of the cause; and although it has not obliged the party to a discovery of any fact, which might tend to show him guilty of the crime, yet it has directed an issue to try whether the deeds were forged.'

In Brownsword v. Edwards, 2 Ves. 246, Lord Hardwicke said:

'Some collateral arguments have been used, that it is not in every case the party shall protect himself against relief in this court upon an allegation that it will subject him to a supposed crime. It is true, it never creates a defense against relief in this court. Therefore in case of usury or forgery, if a proof can be made of it, the court will let the cause go on still to a hearing, but will not force the party by his own oath to subject himself to punishment for it. In a bill to inquire into the reality of deeds on suggestion of forgery, the court has entertained jurisdiction of the cause, though it does not oblige the party to a

...