From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Franklin v. Judson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 1, 1904
96 App. Div. 607 (N.Y. App. Div. 1904)

Opinion

June, 1904.


Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.


This appeal seems to proceed upon the theory that the subpœna requires the appellant (the witness) to produce his books and papers for the plaintiff's inspection. The subpœna does not so read nor is such its office. The appellant can be subpœnaed to produce his books only so that he can by reference to them answer questions pertinent to the inquiry being conducted before the court. It gives no right whatever to the inspection of the books by the plaintiff's counsel. It is claimed that the books are to be used for the purpose of getting evidence in respect to other litigations and not for any purpose connected with the examination before the court. The court before which the examination is pending will see that it is limited to the subjects germane to the investigation being carried on; and we cannot say that the court will not perform its duty in this respect. Indeed we believe that it will; and that the examination will be conducted solely with a view to a discovery of property of the defendant, and not for discovery of evidence relating to another controversy. The rights of the witness can and undoubtedly will be completely protected by the court below. The order appealed from should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Patterson, Ingraham, McLaughlin and Laughlin, JJ., concurred.


Summaries of

Franklin v. Judson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 1, 1904
96 App. Div. 607 (N.Y. App. Div. 1904)
Case details for

Franklin v. Judson

Case Details

Full title:William B. Franklin and Another, Judgment Creditors, Respondents, v. Cyrus…

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

Date published: Jun 1, 1904

Citations

96 App. Div. 607 (N.Y. App. Div. 1904)

Citing Cases

People v. Olsen

Even if the instant subpoena were so-ordered by the court or otherwise HIPAA compliant, the motion to quash…

Reuters Ltd. v. Dow Jones

Co., 180 AD2d 543; Ayubo v Eastman Kodak Co., 158 AD2d 641, 642; Matter of La Belle Creole Intl. v…