Knauth v. Heller

New York Supreme Court

Knauth v. Heller

23 N.Y.S. 106, 68 Hun 570, 75 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 570, 52 N.Y. St. Rep. 764

DecidedApril 14, 1893

StatusPublished

This text of 23 N.Y.S. 106 (Knauth v. Heller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Knauth v. Heller, 23 N.Y.S. 106, 68 Hun 570, 75 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 570, 52 N.Y. St. Rep. 764 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

PEE CUEIAM.

The objection relied on by the respondents to granting the relief asked for is that the witness that they examined, being the person who was the agent of the defendants to whom the loan was made, was not now within this state, so that they could procure his testimony. Such objection would justify the court in refusing the relief asked for, unless the witness is produced for examination by the plaintiffs. Under the circumstances, we think the motion should be granted, upon condition that the defendants produce such witness for examination, and pay $10 costs of the motion below, and $10 costs and disbursements of the appeal; and that the amended answer be served and the costs paid within 2 days after service of a copy of the order to be entered hereon, and the witness be produced within 30 days thereafter. In case these conditions are not complied with, said answer should be stricken out, and the order denying leave to serve said amended answer affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.

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

PEE CUEIAM.

The objection relied on by the respondents to granting the relief asked for is that the witness that they examined, being the person who was the agent of the defendants to whom the loan was made, was not now within this state, so that they could procure his testimony. Such objection would justify the court in refusing the relief asked for, unless the witness is produced for examination by the plaintiffs. Under the circumstances, we think the motion should be granted, upon condition that the defendants produce such witness for examination, and pay $10 costs of the motion below, and $10 costs and disbursements of the appeal; and that the amended answer be served and the costs paid within 2 days after service of a copy of the order to be entered hereon, and the witness be produced within 30 days thereafter. In case these conditions are not complied with, said answer should be stricken out, and the order denying leave to serve said amended answer affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 N.Y.S. 106, 68 Hun 570, 75 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 570, 52 N.Y. St. Rep. 764, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knauth-v-heller-nysupct-1893.