Peetsch v. Quinn

City of New York Municipal Court

Peetsch v. Quinn

18 Misc. 748, 42 N.Y.S. 1130

City of New York Municipal Court·Decided December 15, 1896·Published

Opinion

Fitzsimons, J.

We think that the proceeding herein against Curran was a special proceeding, and as costs were therein awarded Curran, he. had the right to examine the plaintiff under the order granted herein.

Plaintiff having failed to pay such costs, the remedy, so taken, in our judgment, was not objectionable merely because it was retroactive.

The order must be affirmed, with costs.

Van Wyck, Ch. J., and O’Dwyer, J., concur.

Order affirmed, with costs.

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

Fitzsimons, J.

We think that the proceeding herein against Curran was a special proceeding, and as costs were therein awarded Curran, he. had the right to examine the plaintiff under the order granted herein.

Plaintiff having failed to pay such costs, the remedy, so taken, in our judgment, was not objectionable merely because it was retroactive.

The order must be affirmed, with costs.

Van Wyck, Ch. J., and O’Dwyer, J., concur.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Peetsch v. Quinn, 18 Misc. 748, 42 N.Y.S. 1130 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1896).

Pincite

18 Misc. 748 (Peetsch v. Quinn) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.