Butler and another vs. Lee and another

Butler and another vs. Lee and another. The supreme court has no power, in an action upon a draft or bill of exchange, to order the draft to he annexed to a commission issued to take the examination of witnesses for the defendant, residing in another state. THIS was an appeal from so much of an order made at a special term, by Justice Davies, as required the original draft or bill of exchange on which the action was brought, to be annexed to the commission issued to examine certain witnesses in Iowa for the defendants; the draft or bill of exchange to be delivered by the plaintiffs or their attorney to the clerk of this court, for that purpose, who should, before annexing the draft to the commission, cause a photograph of said draft to be taken, at the expense of the defendants, to be allowed them as disbursements in the action in case of their recovery. The defense set up in the answer was, that the draft was in fact drawn for $10, and was afterwards altered without the defendants’ knowledge or consent to $100. Miller, Feet & Nichols, for the plaintiffs* A. K. Hadley, for the defendants. [New York General Term, May 7, 1860. Sutherland, Bonney and Leonard, Justices.] [MAJORITY — Sutherland, J.] By the Court, Sutherland, J. We think that part of the order at special term, appealed from, should be reversed with ten dollars costs. We find neither precedent or principle authorizing that part of the order. (19 N. Y. Rep. 9. 1 Duer, 652. 1 Kern. 575. 3 R. S. 293.) The code (§ 388) and the revised statutes have prescribed a mode in which the defendants and their witnesses can have an inspection of the draft, if necessary, here and within the jurisdiction of this court; but we see no power in the court to compel the plaintiffs to part with their property (the draft) in the manner and for the purposes contemplated by this order. Order reversed.