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

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

DecidedApril 9, 1888

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 35 F. 17 (Celluloid Manuf'g Co. v. Russell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 F. 17, 1888 U.S. App. LEXIS 2394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/celluloid-manufg-co-v-russell-circtsdny-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack