From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Whitelock v. Bergquist

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 19, 1933
238 App. Div. 564 (N.Y. App. Div. 1933)

Opinion

May 19, 1933.

Appeal from Supreme Court of New York County.

James G. Purdy of counsel [ Kennedy Chamberlin, attorneys], for the appellant.

Samuel Seligsohn of counsel [ Harry B. Solow, attorney], for the respondent.

Present — FINCH, P.J., MERRELL, McAVOY, MARTIN and TOWNLEY, JJ.


Operation and control of the automobile having been admitted by failure to deny in the answer it was unnecessary to permit an examination before trial on those subjects. The order so far as it permitted an examination with reference to other matters was erroneous and should be reversed.

The entire order, being erroneous, should, therefore, be reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion to vacate the notice of examination granted.


Order reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted.


Summaries of

Whitelock v. Bergquist

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 19, 1933
238 App. Div. 564 (N.Y. App. Div. 1933)
Case details for

Whitelock v. Bergquist

Case Details

Full title:ANNE ALICE WHITELOCK, Respondent, v. JOHN G. BERGQUIST, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: May 19, 1933

Citations

238 App. Div. 564 (N.Y. App. Div. 1933)
264 N.Y.S. 270

Citing Cases

Perry v. Morse Chain Company

Further, defendant itself resists production of the demolition contract which might, conceivably, aid in…

Crellin v. Van Duzer

Each defendant made a separate motion to vacate the notice for examination and each of them now appeals from…