Bloom v. Pond'S Extract Co.

Superior Court of New York

Bloom v. Pond'S Extract Co.

18 N.Y.S. 179

CourtThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo

DecidedSeptember 15, 1891

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 18 N.Y.S. 179 (Bloom v. Pond'S Extract Co.) 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. Pond'S Extract Co., 18 N.Y.S. 179 (superctny 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

McAdam, J.

The necessity for the examination of the defendant’s treasurer as a witness before trial is that the fact sought to be proved, i. e., whether Evans, who made the contract on behalf of the defendant, had authority to make it, is peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendant. Manufacturing Co. v. Sutro, (Sup.) 6 N. Y. Supp. 384. The plaintiff need not allege that there are no other witnesses by whom the fact may be proved. Videtto v. Dudley, (Super. N. Y.) 4 N. Y. Supp. 437. The plaintiff has made out a fair case for the examination required. Bradley v. De Goicouria, 12 Daly, 397; Be Witt v. McDonald, 1 Civil Proc. R. 86, note; Herbage v. City of Utica, 109 N. Y. 81, 82, 16 N. E. Rep. 62. The examination must proceed on September 14th, at 12 m. The defendant’s treasurer need not produce the books or papers referred to in the order, (Levey v. Railroad Co., 53 N. Y. Super. Ct. 267,) except as decided in Black v. Curry, 1 Civil Proc. R. 193. There is a conflict in the authorities, but the cases cited seem to be in keeping with the present understanding of the practice. 27o costs.

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

McAdam, J.

The necessity for the examination of the defendant’s treasurer as a witness before trial is that the fact sought to be proved, i. e., whether Evans, who made the contract on behalf of the defendant, had authority to make it, is peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendant. Manufacturing Co. v. Sutro, (Sup.) 6 N. Y. Supp. 384. The plaintiff need not allege that there are no other witnesses by whom the fact may be proved. Videtto v. Dudley, (Super. N. Y.) 4 N. Y. Supp. 437. The plaintiff has made out a fair case for the examination required. Bradley v. De Goicouria, 12 Daly, 397; Be Witt v. McDonald, 1 Civil Proc. R. 86, note; Herbage v. City of Utica, 109 N. Y. 81, 82, 16 N. E. Rep. 62. The examination must proceed on September 14th, at 12 m. The defendant’s treasurer need not produce the books or papers referred to in the order, (Levey v. Railroad Co., 53 N. Y. Super. Ct. 267,) except as decided in Black v. Curry, 1 Civil Proc. R. 193. There is a conflict in the authorities, but the cases cited seem to be in keeping with the present understanding of the practice. 27o costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 N.Y.S. 179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bloom-v-ponds-extract-co-superctny-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack