Dunham v. Mercantile Mutual Insurance

The Superior Court of New York City

Dunham v. Mercantile Mutual Insurance

12 Jones & S. 387

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedJanuary 6, 1879

StatusPublished

This text of 12 Jones & S. 387 (Dunham v. Mercantile Mutual Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dunham v. Mercantile Mutual Insurance, 12 Jones & S. 387 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1879).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.—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 the 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 have 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 $10 costs.

Sedgwick and Freedman, JJ., concurred.

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

By the Court.—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 the 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 have 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 $10 costs.

Sedgwick and Freedman, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 Jones & S. 387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunham-v-mercantile-mutual-insurance-nysuperctnyc-1879.