Birdsall v. Pixley

New York Supreme Court

Birdsall v. Pixley

4 Wend. 196

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMay 15, 1830

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 4 Wend. 196 (Birdsall v. Pixley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Birdsall v. Pixley, 4 Wend. 196 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1830).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court,

Marcy, J.

The rule of last term, allowing an attachment in the alternative, was improvidently ordered. The power of the court to compel discoveries in cases of this kind is limited to nonsuiting a plaintiff, or striking out a plea or notice of special matter of a defendant, or debarring him from any defence in relation to which a discovery is sought; and by an express provision, their power is confined to the remedies mentioned. The motion for the attachment is therefore denied. 2 R. S. 200, § 26.)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By the Court,

Marcy, J.

The rule of last term, allowing an attachment in the alternative, was improvidently ordered. The power of the court to compel discoveries in cases of this kind is limited to nonsuiting a plaintiff, or striking out a plea or notice of special matter of a defendant, or debarring him from any defence in relation to which a discovery is sought; and by an express provision, their power is confined to the remedies mentioned. The motion for the attachment is therefore denied. 2 R. S. 200, § 26.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Wend. 196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/birdsall-v-pixley-nysupct-1830.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack