Bliss v. Hornthal

New York Supreme Court

Bliss v. Hornthal

33 N.Y.S. 1018, 94 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 110, 67 N.Y. St. Rep. 887, 87 Hun 110

DecidedMay 17, 1895

StatusPublished

This text of 33 N.Y.S. 1018 (Bliss v. Hornthal) 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

Bliss v. Hornthal, 33 N.Y.S. 1018, 94 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 110, 67 N.Y. St. Rep. 887, 87 Hun 110 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The strongest argument against an open commission is that, with the names of the" witnesses and the knowledge to be derived from the open commission taken in the case of Baily v. This Defendant (now on file), plaintiffs are in a position to formulate the necessary interrogatories. If, however, the labor of framing numberless interrogatories can be avoided, it should be. The defendant, by permitting the testimony already taken to be used upon the trial, subject to all proper objections, can avoid a commission, either open or upon interrogatories. Without passing upon the question whether, in such a case as this, an open commission should be issued, we think, upon the fact appearing that one has been issued by consent in a case between another plaintiff and this defendant, involving practically the same issues, upon which defendant was represented by counsel, and had the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses, that unless he consents to the reading of the testimony so taken he has no just subject of complaint There is no claim made that the former examination was not proper and fair and exhaustive, nor is any good reason given why the testimony so taken could not be used. The orders should be affirmed, with $10 costs in each case and disbursements.

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

PER CURIAM.

The strongest argument against an open commission is that, with the names of the" witnesses and the knowledge to be derived from the open commission taken in the case of Baily v. This Defendant (now on file), plaintiffs are in a position to formulate the necessary interrogatories. If, however, the labor of framing numberless interrogatories can be avoided, it should be. The defendant, by permitting the testimony already taken to be used upon the trial, subject to all proper objections, can avoid a commission, either open or upon interrogatories. Without passing upon the question whether, in such a case as this, an open commission should be issued, we think, upon the fact appearing that one has been issued by consent in a case between another plaintiff and this defendant, involving practically the same issues, upon which defendant was represented by counsel, and had the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses, that unless he consents to the reading of the testimony so taken he has no just subject of complaint There is no claim made that the former examination was not proper and fair and exhaustive, nor is any good reason given why the testimony so taken could not be used. The orders should be affirmed, with $10 costs in each case and disbursements.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 N.Y.S. 1018, 94 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 110, 67 N.Y. St. Rep. 887, 87 Hun 110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bliss-v-hornthal-nysupct-1895.