Ludewig v. Pariser

54 How. Pr. 498, 4 Abb. N. Cas. 246
CourtThe Superior Court of New York City
DecidedMarch 15, 1878
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 54 How. Pr. 498 (Ludewig v. Pariser) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ludewig v. Pariser, 54 How. Pr. 498, 4 Abb. N. Cas. 246 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1878).

Opinion

Sandford, J.

The affidavit upon which the order for the examination of the defendants was made sets forth the names and residences of all the parties to the action, and that the defendants have not appeared; the nature of the action, the substance of the cause of action, the names and residences of the persons to be examined; that the testimony of such persons is material and necessary to the prosecution of the action, and that the persons to be examined are parties to the action. These are all the requisites to the affidavit which, under the provisions of section 872 of the Code of Civil Procedure, must be presented to the judge by a person desiring [499]*499to take the deposition of his adversary in a pending action. By section 873 the judge to whom such an affidavit is presented must grant an order for the examination if an action is pending; and by section 880 the judge or referee taking the deposition must insert therein every answer or declaration of the person examined which either party requires to be inserted. I am of opinion that these broad and sweeping provisions of law deprive the court of any discretion in regard to the examination of parties to suits by them, as parties, and make such examination a matter of absolute right. The argument áb inoonvenienii is most forcible against allowing such an invasion of long-established rights and usages; but the inconvenience, the impolicy, the hardship and injustice of a law affords no warrant for its abrogation by the judiciary. The remedy is in the legislature, and not in the courts. The motion to vacate the order must be denied, and the examination must proceed.

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

Related

Pratt v. Bray
10 Misc. 445 (Superior Court of Buffalo, 1894)
Fluchtwanger v. Dessar
1 Silv. Sup. 1 (New York Supreme Court, 1889)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
54 How. Pr. 498, 4 Abb. N. Cas. 246, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ludewig-v-pariser-nysuperctnyc-1878.