Clark v. Manhattan Railway Co.

New York Court of Appeals

Clark v. Manhattan Railway Co.

1 Silv. Ct. App. 36, 1 N.Y. St. Rep. 163

DecidedMarch 26, 1886

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Silv. Ct. App. 36 (Clark v. Manhattan Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Clark v. Manhattan Railway Co., 1 Silv. Ct. App. 36, 1 N.Y. St. Rep. 163 (N.Y. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Curiam.

It is not claimed that any harm or prejudice came to the plaintiff because the deposition was read to and subscribed by the witness in the absence of his counsel. We have carefully considered all the facts appearing in the affidavits, and are of opinion that plaintiff’s counsel must be held to have waived his right to be present at or to have notice of the reading of the deposition to the, witness on the Monday after it was taken, and that, therefore, the court erred in suppressing it. The orders of the general and special terms should be reversed, and the motion denied, with costs of the appeal to the general term and to this court, and ten dollars costs of the motion.

All concur, except Rapallo, J., absent.

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

Pee Curiam.

It is not claimed that any harm or prejudice came to the plaintiff because the deposition was read to and subscribed by the witness in the absence of his counsel. We have carefully considered all the facts appearing in the affidavits, and are of opinion that plaintiff’s counsel must be held to have waived his right to be present at or to have notice of the reading of the deposition to the, witness on the Monday after it was taken, and that, therefore, the court erred in suppressing it. The orders of the general and special terms should be reversed, and the motion denied, with costs of the appeal to the general term and to this court, and ten dollars costs of the motion.

All concur, except Rapallo, J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Silv. Ct. App. 36, 1 N.Y. St. Rep. 163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-manhattan-railway-co-ny-1886.