20 Abb. N. Cas. 172 | N.Y. Sup. Ct. | 1887
This motion must be denied, on the following grounds:
Second. I do not think that the demand which was made upon the relator was sufficiently specific, as to the affidavit which the respondents required the relator to make.
Third. The relators distinctly swear that they are the owners of the certificates of the stock, specified in their petition, and it would seem, under the decision of the court of appeals in Sheridan v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y. (68 N. Y. 30), that the respondents have no right to inquire whether the transfer of the stock to the relators was merely colorable, or whether a consideration was paid therefor, or as to the occasion of the transfer.
Fourth. It may well be doubted, whether the section under which this application is made, refers to any other proceedings than those which arise in an action, or are incidental thereto.
Ordered accordingly,