From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Drake v. Line-A-Time Mfg. Co., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 1, 1929
226 App. Div. 717 (N.Y. App. Div. 1929)

Opinion

March, 1929.

Present — Sears, P.J., Crouch, Taylor, Thompson and Crosby, JJ.


Order reversed on the law and facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs, on the ground that the witnesses to be examined are without the State of New York (Civ. Prac. Act, § 288), the testimony sought is material, and it cannot be held to be unnecessary simply because plaintiff may have knowledge as to the facts sought to be proved. ( Pierce v. Morris, 192 App. Div. 502; McGrath v. Blumenthal, 220 id. 781.) In the interest of convenience plaintiff should give defendant reasonable written notice of time and place of hearing to be had pursuant to the order of this court and the original notice of examination (Civ. Prac. Act, §§ 290, 291); and the plaintiff having elected to proceed under an open commission, he should, and he is hereby directed to pay defendant fifty dollars to meet the expenses of its representative at the hearing. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 294.) All concur.

Amd. by Laws of 1923, chap. 205. — [REP.


Summaries of

Drake v. Line-A-Time Mfg. Co., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 1, 1929
226 App. Div. 717 (N.Y. App. Div. 1929)
Case details for

Drake v. Line-A-Time Mfg. Co., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES R. DRAKE, Appellant, v. LINE-A-TIME MFG. Co., INC., Respondent

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

Date published: Mar 1, 1929

Citations

226 App. Div. 717 (N.Y. App. Div. 1929)

Citing Cases

Junqua v. Tobey Kirk

Order, entered November 20, 1969, unanimously modified on the law and the facts, and in the exercise of…

Cole v. Manufacturers Trust Company

Where an oral examination outside the State is ordered, the court, in the exercise of discretion, may require…