From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

BELL v. LITT

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 1, 1896
12 App. Div. 626 (N.Y. App. Div. 1896)

Opinion

December Term, 1896.

Present — Barrett, Rumsey, Williams, O'Brien and Ingraham, JJ.


Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. —


The damages sought to be recovered in this action are not alone for injuries which were apparent at or immediately after the accident, but, in addition, those which resulted therefrom and from which it is claimed the plaintiff is still suffering. The order appealed from does not bear the construction placed upon it by the appellant. The examination by the physician is not to take place in the presence of the referee or of the defendant's attorney, but is to be a private examination, and subsequent to such private examination the physician is to appear before the referee and testify as to the condition in which she then found the plaintiff. The other objections to the order are not well taken. The examination was clearly justified by the provisions of the Code, and the facts shown bring the case within those provisions. The time for the examination having passed, a new day will be fixed upon the settlement of the order. The order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.


Summaries of

BELL v. LITT

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 1, 1896
12 App. Div. 626 (N.Y. App. Div. 1896)
Case details for

BELL v. LITT

Case Details

Full title:Emma Bell, Appellant, v. Jacob Litt, Respondent

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

Date published: Dec 1, 1896

Citations

12 App. Div. 626 (N.Y. App. Div. 1896)

Citing Cases

Wood v. Hoffman Co.

There is also an appeal by the defendant from so much of the order as strikes from the order of examination…

Kelman v. Union Railway Co.

At first it was held: "The examination by the physician is not to take place in the presence of the referee…