Celluloid Manuf'g Co. v. Russell

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Celluloid Manuf'g Co. v. Russell

35 F. 17, 1888 U.S. App. LEXIS 2394

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York·Decided April 9, 1888·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Lacombe, J.

This is a motion to strike out certain testimony taken before one of the examiners of this district, sitting at Waterbury, Conn. There is nothing in the statutes or rules, or in any reported case, which authorizes a person designated as “examiner of the circuit court of the United States for the Southern district of New York” to sit and take testimony outside of his district. The decision cited (Railroad Co. v. Drew, 3 Woods, 697) does not apply; in that case the examiner was specially appointed for the district in which he took the proof. The proper mode of taking testimony in equity cases pending in this circuit is indicated in a memorandum filed this day in Arnold v. Chesebrough, ante, 16.

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

Lacombe, J.

This is a motion to strike out certain testimony taken before one of the examiners of this district, sitting at Waterbury, Conn. There is nothing in the statutes or rules, or in any reported case, which authorizes a person designated as “examiner of the circuit court of the United States for the Southern district of New York” to sit and take testimony outside of his district. The decision cited (Railroad Co. v. Drew, 3 Woods, 697) does not apply; in that case the examiner was specially appointed for the district in which he took the proof. The proper mode of taking testimony in equity cases pending in this circuit is indicated in a memorandum filed this day in Arnold v. Chesebrough, ante, 16.

Celluloid Manuf'g Co. v. Russell, 35 F. 17, 1888 U.S. App. LEXIS 2394 (circtsdny 1888).

Pincite

35 F. 17 (Celluloid Manuf'g Co. v. Russell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related