Landress v. Blohm

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Landress v. Blohm

188 A.D. 894

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 15, 1919

StatusPublished

This text of 188 A.D. 894 (Landress v. Blohm) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Landress v. Blohm, 188 A.D. 894 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

The right of a party to a negligence ease to examine his adversary for the purpose of proving facts necessary to the examining party’s affirmative case [895]*895is undoubted. (Preiss v. O’Donohue, 173 App. Div. 121; Kessler v. North River Realty Co., 169 id. 814.) Under the peculiar circumstances of this case such an examination seems not only proper but necessary. Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Jenks, P. J., Mills, Rich, Blackmar and Jaycox, JJ., concurred.

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

The right of a party to a negligence ease to examine his adversary for the purpose of proving facts necessary to the examining party’s affirmative case [895]*895is undoubted. (Preiss v. O’Donohue, 173 App. Div. 121; Kessler v. North River Realty Co., 169 id. 814.) Under the peculiar circumstances of this case such an examination seems not only proper but necessary. Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Jenks, P. J., Mills, Rich, Blackmar and Jaycox, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 A.D. 894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/landress-v-blohm-nyappdiv-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack