Schmitt v. Neapolitan Ice Cream Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schmitt v. Neapolitan Ice Cream Co.

213 A.D. 884

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 15, 1925

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 213 A.D. 884 (Schmitt v. Neapolitan Ice Cream Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schmitt v. Neapolitan Ice Cream Co., 213 A.D. 884 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Order granting examination of defendant corporation before trial in part, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. The learned justice at Special Term was right in 'holding that defendant corporation cannot be examined as a party through persons who have ceased to be officers. (Chartered Bank of India v. North River Ins. Co., 136 App. Div. 646; Duncan v. Jones, 32 Hun, 12.) The bonafides of the termination of relations between the three witnesses and the defendant corporation was not challenged on the papers before the Special Term. Where special circumstances render it proper such persons may be examined before trial as witnesses. (Chittenden v. San Domingo Improvement Co., 132 App. Div. 169.) But that was not the application before the court. As to the other matters eliminated by the [885]*885Special Term we think the examination as allowed sufficient. Kelly, P. J., Jaycox, Manning, Kelby and Kapper, JJ., concur.

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

Order granting examination of defendant corporation before trial in part, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. The learned justice at Special Term was right in 'holding that defendant corporation cannot be examined as a party through persons who have ceased to be officers. (Chartered Bank of India v. North River Ins. Co., 136 App. Div. 646; Duncan v. Jones, 32 Hun, 12.) The bonafides of the termination of relations between the three witnesses and the defendant corporation was not challenged on the papers before the Special Term. Where special circumstances render it proper such persons may be examined before trial as witnesses. (Chittenden v. San Domingo Improvement Co., 132 App. Div. 169.) But that was not the application before the court. As to the other matters eliminated by the [885]*885Special Term we think the examination as allowed sufficient. Kelly, P. J., Jaycox, Manning, Kelby and Kapper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D. 884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schmitt-v-neapolitan-ice-cream-co-nyappdiv-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack