Gormully & Jeffery Manuf'g Co. v. Bretz

DALLAS, Circuit Judge (after stating the facts).' Seven interrogatories are included with the bill in this case. The defendant Jacob S. Bretz was not served, and has not appeared. By note to the bill, the defendant George E. Curtis Avas required to answer the interrogatories numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7, and the defendant Bretz & Curtis Manufacturing Company (no'w Curtis-Child Manufacturing Company) was required to answer the interrogatories numbered 1 to 7, inclusive. ^Neither of these defendants has answered either of them, and argument has now been heard upon exceptions filed by the complainant to their refusal to do so. Interrogatories should be confined to the matters set up in the bill, and be relevant to the case which it alleges. If not material to the purpose of the suit, a defendant ought not to be compelled to answer them. ' For complainant, it is contended that the first three interrogatories are pertinent in “elucidation” of “the allegation that there was a conveyance of the license contract in suit to the Bretz & Curtis Company.” The first interrogatory is not directed solely to that contract, but inquires “what contracts, licenses,” etc., have been conveyed or assigned; and full reply to it might involve disclosure of contracts and conveyances other than that in suit, and of transactions with respect to which the complainant has no right to discovery. The second interrogatory is unobjectionable. The third interrogatory should be answered, either fully or by the statement of some fact justifying the refusal to do so. No sufficient reason for declining to answer it was suggested upon the argument. The plaintiff’s counsel has stated that the remaining interrogatories are intended to elicit discovery of the fact that the Bretz & Curtis Manufacturing Company is the successor of Bretz, Curtis & Co., and is really the same concern under a corporate organization. It is legitimate to inquire, with this object, into the circumstances connected with the creation of the corporation, and the number of its shares which were acquired by Bretz and Curtis, the consideration therefor; etc. To this extent, but not further, the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh interrogatories are well founded. [615] The first exception is dismissed. The second and third exceptions are sustained. The fourth and fifth exceptions to the answer of George E. Curtis, and the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh exceptions to the answer of Curtis-Child Manufacturing Company, are so far sustained that the defendants are, respectively, directed to answer the interrogatories to which those exceptions severally relate, to the extent which the foregoing opinion indicates to be requisite. The defendants are assigned to answer, in accordance with this opinion on or before the next rule day.