Paper & Textile Mach. Co. v. Newlin

1 Citing case

  1. Elec. Reduction Co. of Canada, v. Crane

    120 So. 2d 765 (Miss. 1960)   Cited 5 times

    B. There was no showing or allegation that the information sought from McClanahan was necessary or material and relevant to any issues in the Canadian litigation and the lower court was justified in declining to proceed further. Claude Neon Lights, Inc. v. Rainbow Light, Inc., 31 F.2d 988; Diamond Match Co. v. Oshkosh Match Works, 63 Fed. 984; Dobson v. Graham, 49 Fed. 17; Paper Textile Machinery Co. v. Newlin, 101 N.J. Eq. 115, 137 A. 314; Pattison v. Josselyn, 43 Miss. 373; Reedy v. Johnson's Estate, 200 Miss. 205, 26 So.2d 685; Southwestern Surety Ins. Co. v. Tredway, 113 Miss. 189, 74 So. 143; Stokes Bros. Mfg. Co. v. Haller, 56 Fed. 279; Sec. 1475.5, Code 1942; 2 Southern Digest, Appeal Error, p. 820, et seq. II. McClanahan's deposition is to be in the nature of discovery which is contrary to statutes of Mississippi. Sec. 1659, Code 1942; Federal Examinations Before Trial and Deposition Practice at Home and Abroad by Dyer-Smith.