Mills v. Providence Belting Co.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island

Mills v. Providence Belting Co.

145 F. 447, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4771

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island

DecidedMay 12, 1906

DocketNo. 2,720

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 145 F. 447 (Mills v. Providence Belting Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mills v. Providence Belting Co., 145 F. 447, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4771 (circtdri 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

BROWN, District Judge.

The plaintiff moves that the attorneys of record of the plaintiff may be permitted, with experts, to view and examine the place and cause of the injury mentioned in the declaration. The plaintiff relies upon section 372, p. 107, of the Court and Practice Act of the state of Rhode Island, passed by the General Assembly at its January session, 1905. I am of the opinion that that section is applicable to actions at law pending in this court, and that a requirement that the defendant shall allow a reasonable inspection of its premises violates no constitutional rights of the defendant. Camden Ry. Co. v. Stetson, 177 U. S. 172, 20 Sup. Ct. 617, 44 L. Ed. 721; Montana Co. v. St. Louis M. & M. Co., 152 U. S. 160, 14 Sup. Ct. 506, 38 L. Ed. 398. It is familiar practice to order a view of private premises; and, if it be permissible to require a defendant to submit to an examination of its premises by a jury at the time of trial, I see no reason for applying a different rule to an application of this character, made before the actual trial. The defendant is, of course, entitled to insist that this examination shall be at a reasonable time, and upon suitable terms and conditions. In case such time, terms, and conditions cannot be agreed upon, they will be determined by the court.

Motion granted.

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

BROWN, District Judge.

The plaintiff moves that the attorneys of record of the plaintiff may be permitted, with experts, to view and examine the place and cause of the injury mentioned in the declaration. The plaintiff relies upon section 372, p. 107, of the Court and Practice Act of the state of Rhode Island, passed by the General Assembly at its January session, 1905. I am of the opinion that that section is applicable to actions at law pending in this court, and that a requirement that the defendant shall allow a reasonable inspection of its premises violates no constitutional rights of the defendant. Camden Ry. Co. v. Stetson, 177 U. S. 172, 20 Sup. Ct. 617, 44 L. Ed. 721; Montana Co. v. St. Louis M. & M. Co., 152 U. S. 160, 14 Sup. Ct. 506, 38 L. Ed. 398. It is familiar practice to order a view of private premises; and, if it be permissible to require a defendant to submit to an examination of its premises by a jury at the time of trial, I see no reason for applying a different rule to an application of this character, made before the actual trial. The defendant is, of course, entitled to insist that this examination shall be at a reasonable time, and upon suitable terms and conditions. In case such time, terms, and conditions cannot be agreed upon, they will be determined by the court.

Motion granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 F. 447, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mills-v-providence-belting-co-circtdri-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack