Perry v. Rubber Tire Wheel Co.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Perry v. Rubber Tire Wheel Co.

138 F. 836, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4633

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedApril 27, 1905

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 138 F. 836 (Perry v. Rubber Tire Wheel Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Perry v. Rubber Tire Wheel Co., 138 F. 836, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4633 (circtsdny 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

TOWNSEND, Circuit Judge.

The counsel herein are engaged in taking depositions under section 863, Rev. St. [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 661], The plaintiff and her husband have refused to.an[837]*837swer certain questions, and counsel for defendant has moved for an order to direct the witnesses to answer said questions. It is thought that the rule laid down in Blease v. Garlington, 92 U. S. 1, 23 L. Ed. 521, should be applied in the taking of such depositions. There is some uncertainty as to the practice in such cases, but the duty of this court is merely to see that the witness is properly protected in his constitutional rights, and that the process of the court is not abused. Wertheim v. R. R. (C. C.) 15 Fed. 716. The question as to the admissibility of the evidence is to be tested by the laws of the forum. Pritchard v. Norton, 106 U. S. 124, 1 Sup. Ct. 102, 27 L. Ed. 104. The general rule is that the witness should be required to answer all questions which may possibly be material. Matter of Whitlock, 51 Hun, 354, 3 N. Y . Supp. 855; Matter of Strong v. Randall, 90 App. Div. 192, 85 N. Y. Supp. 1089; Id., 177 N. Y. 400, 69 N. E. 721.

An order may be entered that the witnesses Augusta E. E. Perry and John W. Perry answer the questions put to them.

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

TOWNSEND, Circuit Judge.

The counsel herein are engaged in taking depositions under section 863, Rev. St. [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 661], The plaintiff and her husband have refused to.an[837]*837swer certain questions, and counsel for defendant has moved for an order to direct the witnesses to answer said questions. It is thought that the rule laid down in Blease v. Garlington, 92 U. S. 1, 23 L. Ed. 521, should be applied in the taking of such depositions. There is some uncertainty as to the practice in such cases, but the duty of this court is merely to see that the witness is properly protected in his constitutional rights, and that the process of the court is not abused. Wertheim v. R. R. (C. C.) 15 Fed. 716. The question as to the admissibility of the evidence is to be tested by the laws of the forum. Pritchard v. Norton, 106 U. S. 124, 1 Sup. Ct. 102, 27 L. Ed. 104. The general rule is that the witness should be required to answer all questions which may possibly be material. Matter of Whitlock, 51 Hun, 354, 3 N. Y . Supp. 855; Matter of Strong v. Randall, 90 App. Div. 192, 85 N. Y. Supp. 1089; Id., 177 N. Y. 400, 69 N. E. 721.

An order may be entered that the witnesses Augusta E. E. Perry and John W. Perry answer the questions put to them.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 F. 836, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4633, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perry-v-rubber-tire-wheel-co-circtsdny-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack