Blennerhasset v. Stephens

New York Supreme Court

Blennerhasset v. Stephens

12 N.Y.S. 602, 36 N.Y. St. Rep. 195, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2631

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 31, 1890

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 12 N.Y.S. 602 (Blennerhasset v. Stephens) 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

Blennerhasset v. Stephens, 12 N.Y.S. 602, 36 N.Y. St. Rep. 195, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2631 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We think this case comes within the rule laid d*own in Williams v. Folsom, that the party seeking the examination must show special circumstances making it important to take the testimony of his adversary before the trial instead of at the trial. 5 N. Y. Supp. 211. The plaintiff has failed to comply with this requirement. Furthermore, it is apparent from the papers that the plaintiff’s husband, who makes an affidavit in her behalf, is informed as to the matters concerning which she desires to examine the defendant, except such as the defendant would be obliged to disclose if an accounting were decreed, and as to- these an examination before trial cannot be necessary. We are satisfied that no examination' at this time is needed to enable the plaintiff to enforce such rights as she may have against [603]*603the defendant. The order appealed from is reversed, and the motion to vacate the order for the defendant’s examination before trial is granted, with $10 costs and the disbursements of appeal.

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

Per Curiam.

We think this case comes within the rule laid d*own in Williams v. Folsom, that the party seeking the examination must show special circumstances making it important to take the testimony of his adversary before the trial instead of at the trial. 5 N. Y. Supp. 211. The plaintiff has failed to comply with this requirement. Furthermore, it is apparent from the papers that the plaintiff’s husband, who makes an affidavit in her behalf, is informed as to the matters concerning which she desires to examine the defendant, except such as the defendant would be obliged to disclose if an accounting were decreed, and as to- these an examination before trial cannot be necessary. We are satisfied that no examination' at this time is needed to enable the plaintiff to enforce such rights as she may have against [603]*603the defendant. The order appealed from is reversed, and the motion to vacate the order for the defendant’s examination before trial is granted, with $10 costs and the disbursements of appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 N.Y.S. 602, 36 N.Y. St. Rep. 195, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2631, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blennerhasset-v-stephens-nysupct-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack