Dunham v. Mercantile Mutual Insurance

56 How. Pr. 240, 6 Abb. N. Cas. 70
The Superior Court of New York City·Decided November 15, 1878·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Curtis, Ch. J.

The affidavit upon which the defendant applies for the examination of the plaintiff fails to comply with the requirements of sections 872 and 886 of the new Code of Civil Procedure. It omits any statement of the residence of the plaintiff or that any inquiry has been made to ascertain it, or that there is any difficulty in learning it. It omits to state whether the plaintiff has appeared by attorney; nor does the name, residence or office address of any attorney on plaintiff’s behalf appear in defendant’s affidavit. There is no proof of any notice to the plaintiff of this order for his examination, or that any order, affidavit or subpoena jias been served upon him in respect to it. To sustain the order under such circumstances might subject non-resident parties to great hardships. It appears from the defendant’s affidavit that the plaintiff resides in another state, and if so he is entitled to the protection given him as a non-resident of this state by section 886.

The order appealed from should be reversed, with costs.

All concur.

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

Dunham v. Mercantile Mutual Insurance, 56 How. Pr. 240, 6 Abb. N. Cas. 70 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1878).

56 How. Pr. 240 (Dunham v. Mercantile Mutual Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dennis v. Tebbetts
29 Misc. 600 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1899)
Witcher v. Tribune Ass'n
14 N.Y.S. 290 (Superior Court of New York, 1891)
Witcher v. Tribune Ass'n
27 Jones & S. 224 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1891)
Fluchtwanger v. Dessar
1 Silv. Sup. 1 (New York Supreme Court, 1889)