From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Manufacturers Trust Co. v. Am. Nat. Fire Ins. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 12, 1931
232 App. Div. 536 (N.Y. App. Div. 1931)

Summary

In Manufacturers Trust Co. v. American Nat. Fire Ins. Co. (232 App. Div. 536) the court said: "The persons whom plaintiff sought to examine, although not parties to the action, were so related to the acts which plaintiff must prove and the circumstances of their connection with the alleged wrongful conduct of defendants were such that we conclude that an examination ought to have been allowed."

Summary of this case from Commissioners, State Ins. v. Herman Co.

Opinion

June 12, 1931.

Appeal from Supreme Court of New York County.

Samuel Markle of counsel [ Murray L. Jacobs with him on the brief; Jonas Neuburger, attorneys], for the appellant.

David A. Ticktin of counsel [ Abraham Kaplan with him on the brief; Powers Kaplan, attorneys], for the respondent American National Fire Insurance Company.

J.B. Erb of counsel, for the respondent George A. Spirou.

Present — FINCH, P.J., McAVOY, MARTIN and O'MALLEY, JJ.


The persons whom plaintiff sought to examine, although not parties to the action, were so related to the acts which plaintiff must prove and the circumstances of their connection with the alleged wrongful conduct of defendants were such that we conclude that an examination ought to have been allowed.

The order should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted.


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


Summaries of

Manufacturers Trust Co. v. Am. Nat. Fire Ins. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 12, 1931
232 App. Div. 536 (N.Y. App. Div. 1931)

In Manufacturers Trust Co. v. American Nat. Fire Ins. Co. (232 App. Div. 536) the court said: "The persons whom plaintiff sought to examine, although not parties to the action, were so related to the acts which plaintiff must prove and the circumstances of their connection with the alleged wrongful conduct of defendants were such that we conclude that an examination ought to have been allowed."

Summary of this case from Commissioners, State Ins. v. Herman Co.
Case details for

Manufacturers Trust Co. v. Am. Nat. Fire Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:MANUFACTURERS TRUST COMPANY, Appellant, v. AMERICAN NATIONAL FIRE…

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

Date published: Jun 12, 1931

Citations

232 App. Div. 536 (N.Y. App. Div. 1931)
252 N.Y.S. 89

Citing Cases

Weinstein v. Berry

Each of them was active in transactions out of which the cause of action or defense arose, their hostility to…

Southbridge Finishing Co. v. Golding

(See Lyon v. Fieldgren Realty Corp., 190 Misc. 700, affd. 273 App. Div. 917, and cases cited therein.) Thus…