Post v. Scheider

New York Supreme Court

Post v. Scheider

13 N.Y.S. 396, 36 N.Y. St. Rep. 324, 59 Hun 619, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1133

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 11, 1891

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 13 N.Y.S. 396 (Post v. Scheider) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Post v. Scheider, 13 N.Y.S. 396, 36 N.Y. St. Rep. 324, 59 Hun 619, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1133 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Pratt, J.

This is an appeal from an order requiring the plaintiff’s attorney to disclose the plaintiff’s address, and in default thereof staying the action. The power of the court to grant such is too well established to require argument. Walton v. Fairchild, 4 N. Y. Supp. 552; Tidd. Pr. (Amer. notes) 533, 534;. Ninety-Wine Plaintiffs v. Vanderbilt, 1 Abb. Pr. 193; Worton v. Smith, 6 Moore, 110. Such an order is discretionary,' and should not be reversed unless there is a clear ease of abuse of discretion. We think it was important to the defendant to know the address of the plaintiff, in order that he might take measures to examine him before answering, and to move for security in case the plaintiff is a non-resident. The facts disclosed are sufficient to justify the order, which is affirmed, with costs.

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

Pratt, J.

This is an appeal from an order requiring the plaintiff’s attorney to disclose the plaintiff’s address, and in default thereof staying the action. The power of the court to grant such is too well established to require argument. Walton v. Fairchild, 4 N. Y. Supp. 552; Tidd. Pr. (Amer. notes) 533, 534;. Ninety-Wine Plaintiffs v. Vanderbilt, 1 Abb. Pr. 193; Worton v. Smith, 6 Moore, 110. Such an order is discretionary,' and should not be reversed unless there is a clear ease of abuse of discretion. We think it was important to the defendant to know the address of the plaintiff, in order that he might take measures to examine him before answering, and to move for security in case the plaintiff is a non-resident. The facts disclosed are sufficient to justify the order, which is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 N.Y.S. 396, 36 N.Y. St. Rep. 324, 59 Hun 619, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/post-v-scheider-nysupct-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack