Kline Bros. & Co. v. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins.

184 F. 969, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 5083
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
DecidedJanuary 14, 1911
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 184 F. 969 (Kline Bros. & Co. v. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kline Bros. & Co. v. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins., 184 F. 969, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 5083 (circtsdny 1911).

Opinion

WARD, Circuit Judge.

The party having the right to take depositions de bene esse under section 863 of the Revised Statutes (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 661) without any application to or assistance from [970]*970the court, I doubt the power of the court to vacate or extend the notice. The party who gives the notice takes the risk of the deposition being suppressed if it does not comply with the requirements of the statute. It would greatly impair the efficiency of the statute, which is aimed at emergencies, if courts were to intervene. If the plaintiff thinks the notice is bad, his course is to treat it as a nullity, and move to suppress the depositions, if taken.

The motion to vacate the notice to take depositions is denied.

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

Related

Juster v. Grossman
38 N.W.2d 832 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1949)
Willmott v. Agwi Nav. Co.
16 F. Supp. 870 (E.D. New York, 1936)
Dowling v. Jones
67 F.2d 537 (Second Circuit, 1933)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
184 F. 969, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 5083, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kline-bros-co-v-liverpool-london-globe-ins-circtsdny-1911.