Order to Show Cause on Plaintiff's Application 175 to Vacate Order of May 7, 1932 176 (c). Or in the alternative, if this Court refuses to set aside, vacate and declare null and void the order granted by Justice Morschauser on May 7th, 1932, why the said defendants, Elvira S. Graham, Julia S. Bock, and their attorneys should not be compelled to submit for determination the motion returnable on May 21st, 1932, at Special Term, at Poughkeepsie, to be presided over by Justice Morschauser, on May 13, 1932, upon the ground that said Justice Morschauser has in the past refused to entertain motions as herein referred to of this character wherein Mr. Aldrich appears as attorney, and to show cause further why this motion returnable May 21st, 1932, should not be submitted for determination at the Special Term, to be held in and for the County of Orange, on May 13th, 1932, at 10 o'clock A. M., and such other and further relief as to this Court may seem just and equitable, besides the costs of this motion. And it further appearing satisfactorily to this Court that there are sufficient reasons for the granting of an order to show cause herein and that the usual practice of serving a motion cannot be had without great prejudice of the rights and interest of the plaintiff in this action, it is further Ordered, that service of this order to show cause upon the defendants in this action, Elvira S. Graham, Julia S. Bock, or their attorneys, Hon. John E. Mack, Raymond E. Aldrich and McCabe & Rosen, on or before the 12th day of May, 1932, shall be deemed proper and sufficient service of this order. Dated, at Poughkeepsie, N. Y., this 11th day of May, 1932. J. GORDON FLANNERY, Dutchess County Judge. 177 178 Moving Affidavit on Plaintiff's Application to Vacate Order of May 7, 1932. SUPREME COURT, DUTCHESS COUNTY. ISOBEL S. CARTER, Plaintiff, against 179 ELVIRA S. GRAHAM, JULIA S. BOCK, JOHN K. Sague, HELEN Defendants. SS: State of New York, Isobel S. Carter, being duly sworn, deposes and says, that she is the plaintiff in the forego ing action. That this action was brought by 180 this deponent for the purpose of obtaining an interest in the estate of James E. Sague, as his child upon the following grounds, viz: 1. That a contract had been made with the natural parents of this deponent with the late James E. Sague and Jeannette K. Sague, his wife, wherein and whereby and under said contract, it was agreed that your deponent would be adopted by the said James E. Sague and Jeannette K. Sague, and upon the death of Moving Affidavit on Plaintiff's Application to 181 Vacate Order of May 7, 1932 either the said James E. Sague or Jeannette K. Sague, would inherit an interest in the estate of either of these parties, as a child of said parties. 2. For a declaratory judgment declaring that an adoption proceedings heretofore conducted in the year 1899, in Schenectady County, before the County Judge of that county wherein proceedings were had for the adoption of this deponent. That the proceedings so taken and referred to in the complaint were and are a valid, 182 legal and proper adoption proceedings entitling this plaintiff, your deponent, to her rights of inheritance in the estate of the late James E. Sague, deceased. 3. That incidental to the relief and judgment asked, an injunction is sought against all courts and particularly against the Surrogate's Court of Dutchess County from proceedings in matters connected with the same issue or similar issues that are involved in the instant action. 183 3. That the above entitled action was commenced by the personal service upon the defendants in this action on March 21st, 1932. 4. That the time for the defendants to answer the complaint in this action would then have exrired on April 12th, 1932. 5. That instead of answering the complaint, the defendants, Elvira S. Graham and Julia S. Bock, filed a motion with this court, under date of April 8th, 1932, returnable in the County of Orange, Hon. Justice Graham Witschief, pre 184 Moving Affidavit on Plaintiff's Application to Vacate Order of May 7, 1932 185 siding, on the 15th day of April, 1932, at which time, the motion then presented at Special Term, on that occasion was made under Rule 106 and Rule 107, of the Rules of Civil Practice, wherein it was claimed by these defendants, Elvira S. Graham and Julia S. Bock, that upon the face of the complaint and also upon affidavits submitted upon said motion there was another action pending in the Surrogate's Court of Dutchess County, for the same cause of action between the same parties as designated in the instant action. 6. That upon this oral argument, as your deponent is informed and believes to be true, the defendants, Elvira S. Graham and Julia S. Bock, appearing by Paul Rosen, Esq., and Raymond E. Aldrich, Esq., their attorneys, requested the privilege of said Court, to file a brief in connection with the motion then pending and under direction of the Court, the said attorneys, Mr. Rosen and Mr. Aldrich, were ordered by the Court to exchange briefs with your deponent's attorney, William A. Mulvey, Esq., on or before April 22nd, 1932, and that the motion would be finally submitted for decision on April 29th, 1932. 7. That as your deponent is informed and believes to be true, your deponent's brief in opposition to said motion was presented to this Court on April 15th, 1932, and a copy thereof was duly delivered to the defendants' attorneys, on the 26th day of April, 1932, although in the meantime, and particularly on April 22nd, 25th 186 Moving Affidavit on Plaintiff's Application to 187 Vacate Order of May 7, 1932 was and 26th, repeated demands were made upon the defendants' attorneys for their brief, and on every occasion it was noted and stated that the brief was not prepared as yet. 8. That on the evening of April 27th, 1932, two days before the final submission of said motion and five days after the time allowed by the Court to submit a brief and to exchange briefs, your deponent's attorney then served with the brief to be submitted by the defendants in support of said motion. 188 9. That in order not to delay the Court in the decision of this motion, your deponent's attorney prepared a reply brief so as to comply with the Court's request and to have the entire matter submitted on April 29th, 1932, which was done, and that thereafter a memorandum was filed by Hon. Graham Witschief, denying the motion of the defendants so made, as aforesaid, which memorandum was received by your deponent's attorney, on May 2nd, 1932, and an order was duly prepared and submitted to the Hon. Graham Witschief, for his signature, and the said order, with notice of entry, was filed 189 in the Dutchess County Clerk's Office on May 5th, 1932, and served May 5th, 1932, the filing being in the Dutchess County Clerk's Office of Poughkeepsie, New York, and the service being made upon the attorneys, McCabe & Rosen, at Poughkeepsie, N. Y., on said date. 10. That the defendants have been in possession of these pleadings, namely, the summons and complaint in this action, since March 21st, |