Opinion
June, 1904.
James C. de La Mare, for the appellant Bohm.
A.L. Gutman, for the appellant Knatz.
Willoughby B. Dobbs, for the respondent.
Present — O'BRIEN, INGRAHAM, McLAUGHLIN, HATCH and LAUGHLIN, JJ.
We do not think that we should sanction the practice of requiring a defendant to produce for inspection a deed at a photographer's studio so that it might be photographed. We think the better practice is to direct that the deed should be placed in the custody of the county clerk with permission to the plaintiff to inspect it and, if he desires, to have it photographed.
The order accordingly should be so modified, without costs.
Order modified, without costs.