Herbage v. . City of Utica

New York Court of Appeals

Herbage v. . City of Utica

16 N.E. 62, 109 N.Y. 81, 14 N.Y. St. Rep. 845, 64 Sickels 81, 1888 N.Y. LEXIS 703

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 10, 1888

StatusPublished

Cited by47 cases

This text of 16 N.E. 62 (Herbage v. . City of Utica) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Herbage v. . City of Utica, 16 N.E. 62, 109 N.Y. 81, 14 N.Y. St. Rep. 845, 64 Sickels 81, 1888 N.Y. LEXIS 703 (N.Y. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Danforth, J.

The cases cited by the respective counsel show that the practice in relation to the subject is not uniform throughout the various departments of the Supreme Court, but we are of opinion that a party litigant may, in the discretion of the judge to whom application is made under the provisions of sections 870, 872, 873 of the Code of Civil Procedure, have a general examination of his adversary as a witness in the cause, as well before as at the trial, and that it is not, as of course, to be limited to an affirmative cause of action, or. an affirmative defense set forth in favor of the party desiring that examination. The order appealed from was so limited, not according to the discretion of the court, by which it might have been restrained, but because, as appears by the order, the court was of opinion that it had no power to order otherwise.

The order appealed from should, therefore, be reversed, and the case remitted to the Supreme Court for further consideration, without costs in this court to either party.

All concur.

Ordered accordingly.

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

Danforth, J.

The cases cited by the respective counsel show that the practice in relation to the subject is not uniform throughout the various departments of the Supreme Court, but we are of opinion that a party litigant may, in the discretion of the judge to whom application is made under the provisions of sections 870, 872, 873 of the Code of Civil Procedure, have a general examination of his adversary as a witness in the cause, as well before as at the trial, and that it is not, as of course, to be limited to an affirmative cause of action, or. an affirmative defense set forth in favor of the party desiring that examination. The order appealed from was so limited, not according to the discretion of the court, by which it might have been restrained, but because, as appears by the order, the court was of opinion that it had no power to order otherwise.

The order appealed from should, therefore, be reversed, and the case remitted to the Supreme Court for further consideration, without costs in this court to either party.

All concur.

Ordered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 N.E. 62, 109 N.Y. 81, 14 N.Y. St. Rep. 845, 64 Sickels 81, 1888 N.Y. LEXIS 703, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herbage-v-city-of-utica-ny-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack