Goldmark v. Metropolitan Opera-House Co.

22 N.Y.S. 136, 51 N.Y. St. Rep. 460
New York Supreme Court·Decided February 17, 1893·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

It is apparent from an examination of the answers of the witness to the cross interrogatories that there was a deliberate refusal to fairly and fully answer the questions propounded; and this, not by way of mistake, but willfully, and with knowledge that the answers were not as full and complete as required. Under these circumstances we think it is the duty of the court to suppress the commission, and to leave the party who desires to avail himself of the testimony of the assignor of his claim to such relief as he may procure upon an application for a new commission at the special term. The order appealed from should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion to suppress the commission granted, with $10 costs.

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

Goldmark v. Metropolitan Opera-House Co., 22 N.Y.S. 136, 51 N.Y. St. Rep. 460 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1893).

22 N.Y.S. 136 (Goldmark v. Metropolitan Opera-House Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Calhoun v. Commonwealth Trust Co.
124 A.D. 633 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1908)
Michaelis v. Compania Metalurgica Mexicana
51 A.D. 470 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1900)