Baglin v. Cusenier Co.
This text of 156 F. 1019 (Baglin v. Cusenier Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
After the time for taking testimony in this case had expired, Hough, J., refused to permit the defendant to offer in evidence the Law Times report of the British decision. This was discretionary with him, and, as no appeal would lie to his action (Ingle v. Jones, 9 Wall. 486, 19 L. Ed. 621), the motion papers on which he acted are not within the rule laid down in Blease v. Garlington, 92 U. S. 1, 23 L. Ed. 521.
The motion to require the defendant to strike the motion papers from its printed record is therefore granted.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
156 F. 1019, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 5385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baglin-v-cusenier-co-circtsdny-1907.