Lamchick v. Ackerman

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Lamchick v. Ackerman

130 N.Y.S. 144

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 29, 1911

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 130 N.Y.S. 144 (Lamchick v. Ackerman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lamchick v. Ackerman, 130 N.Y.S. 144 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs, in order to prove their claim in this case, resorted to the alleged testimony of one of the defendants, taken under a commission which had been applied for by the defendants in order to take the testimony of some witnesses residing in Wisconsin. This commission was applied for by the defendant, the interrogatories were settled by consent, but the commission itself was not issued by or signed or sealed by the court. The court was without jurisdiction to take the testimony given by virtue of a commission not issued or signed by the justice and such commission was a nullity. No motion to- suppress it was necessary under such circumstances, no matter by which party the same was applied for, and no statements of witnesses alleged to have been taken thereunder was competent to be read in evidence upon the trial. Objection to the admission of evidence taken under the commission was duly made at the trial.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs, in order to prove their claim in this case, resorted to the alleged testimony of one of the defendants, taken under a commission which had been applied for by the defendants in order to take the testimony of some witnesses residing in Wisconsin. This commission was applied for by the defendant, the interrogatories were settled by consent, but the commission itself was not issued by or signed or sealed by the court. The court was without jurisdiction to take the testimony given by virtue of a commission not issued or signed by the justice and such commission was a nullity. No motion to- suppress it was necessary under such circumstances, no matter by which party the same was applied for, and no statements of witnesses alleged to have been taken thereunder was competent to be read in evidence upon the trial. Objection to the admission of evidence taken under the commission was duly made at the trial.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 N.Y.S. 144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lamchick-v-ackerman-nyappterm-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack