Bloom v. Patten

Superior Court of New York

Bloom v. Patten

10 N.Y.S. 228, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2049

CourtThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo

DecidedJune 27, 1890

StatusPublished

This text of 10 N.Y.S. 228 (Bloom v. Patten) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bloom v. Patten, 10 N.Y.S. 228, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2049 (superctny 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Freedman, J.

The papers on which the defendants were ordered to appear and submit to an examination before trial, and to make a discovery of their books and papers, claimed that such examination and discovery were necessary to enable the plaintiff to amend his complaint. The test, therefore, is whether a necessity was shown for the purpose stated. The proof fails to show suvh a necessity. From all that appears by the affidavits on both sides, it is evident that the plaintiff has sufficient knowledge of the facts constituting his alleged cause of action, and that his object is to obtain information concerning an anticipated defense, and to find out whether the cause of action cannot be extended to other parties. The order should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

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

Freedman, J.

The papers on which the defendants were ordered to appear and submit to an examination before trial, and to make a discovery of their books and papers, claimed that such examination and discovery were necessary to enable the plaintiff to amend his complaint. The test, therefore, is whether a necessity was shown for the purpose stated. The proof fails to show suvh a necessity. From all that appears by the affidavits on both sides, it is evident that the plaintiff has sufficient knowledge of the facts constituting his alleged cause of action, and that his object is to obtain information concerning an anticipated defense, and to find out whether the cause of action cannot be extended to other parties. The order should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 N.Y.S. 228, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2049, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bloom-v-patten-superctny-1890.