Fitzpatrick v. Van Schaick

New York Marine Court

Fitzpatrick v. Van Schaick

59 How. Pr. 472

DecidedSeptember 15, 1880

StatusPublished

This text of 59 How. Pr. 472 (Fitzpatrick v. Van Schaick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Marine Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fitzpatrick v. Van Schaick, 59 How. Pr. 472 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1880).

Pincite

Opinion

McAdam, J. —

The defendants justify the sale of the 200 shares of Delaware and Lackawanna stock (alleged by the plaintiff to have been converted) under an order given by one Maria L. Hubbard, whom the defendants claim was the plaintiff’s agent. ■ The plaintiff seeks to examine the defendants [473]*473for the purpose of discovering whether Mrs. Hubbard was the plaintiffs or defendants’ agent. The plaintiff, in the nature of things, ought to know as much about this as the defendants. If she was not the plaintiff’s agent, the main defense fails. As the defendants have the affirmative of the defense, the plaintiff, under the rule laid down in Chapin agt. Thompson (16 Hun, 53), will have to wait until the trial before she can oblige the defendants to tell her what they will swear to concerning it.

Order vacated.

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

McAdam, J. —

The defendants justify the sale of the 200 shares of Delaware and Lackawanna stock (alleged by the plaintiff to have been converted) under an order given by one Maria L. Hubbard, whom the defendants claim was the plaintiff’s agent. ■ The plaintiff seeks to examine the defendants [473]*473for the purpose of discovering whether Mrs. Hubbard was the plaintiffs or defendants’ agent. The plaintiff, in the nature of things, ought to know as much about this as the defendants. If she was not the plaintiff’s agent, the main defense fails. As the defendants have the affirmative of the defense, the plaintiff, under the rule laid down in Chapin agt. Thompson (16 Hun, 53), will have to wait until the trial before she can oblige the defendants to tell her what they will swear to concerning it.

Order vacated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 How. Pr. 472, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fitzpatrick-v-van-schaick-nymarct-1880.