Drake v. Line-a-Time Manufacturing Co.

226 A.D. 717
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 15, 1929·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Order reversed on the law and facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs, on the ground that the witnesses to be examined are without the State of New York (Civ. Prac. Act, § 288), the testimony sought is material, and it cannot be held to be unnecessary simply because plaintiff may have knowledge as to the facts sought to be proved. (Pierce v. Morris, 192 App. Div. 502; McGrath v. Blumenthál, 220 id. 781.) In the interest of convenience plaintiff should give defendant reasonable written notice of time and place of hearing to be had pursuant to the order of this court and the original notice of examination (Civ. Prac. Act, §§ 290, 291);

Footnotes

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

Drake v. Line-a-Time Manufacturing Co., 226 A.D. 717 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1929).

226 A.D. 717 (Drake v. Line-a-Time Manufacturing Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Junqua v. Tobey & Kirk
34 A.D.2d 740 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1970)
Kaufman v. Rosenbach
3 Misc. 2d 17 (New York County Courts, 1956)
Burns v. Hayes
193 Misc. 501 (New York Supreme Court, 1948)
Taylor v. L. C. Smith & Corona Typewriters, Inc.
179 Misc. 290 (New York Supreme Court, 1942)
Moore v. George A. Hormel & Co.
2 F.R.D. 340 (S.D. New York, 1942)
Cole v. Manufacturers Trust Co.
253 A.D. 749 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1937)
Etter v. Early Foundry Co.
164 Misc. 88 (New York Supreme Court, 1937)
Bartenbach v. Smith
256 N.W. 584 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1934)