Seiden v. Concordia Fire Ins. Co. of Milwaukee

S.D. New York

Seiden v. Concordia Fire Ins. Co. of Milwaukee

49 F.2d 474, 1931 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1320

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedApril 27, 1931

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 49 F.2d 474 (Seiden v. Concordia Fire Ins. Co. of Milwaukee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Seiden v. Concordia Fire Ins. Co. of Milwaukee, 49 F.2d 474, 1931 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1320 (S.D.N.Y. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

WOOLSEY, District Judge.

This motion is denied in all respects.

I. The question here involves the .suppression of the deposition, taken under title 28, U. S. Code, § 639 (28 USCA § 639) formerly Rev. Stat. § 863, of a witness who is a state employee engaged in work as inspector of motor vehicles for New York State, with official headquarters at Albany, and temporary residence also in that city.

II. The fact that the legal residence of witness is in New York City is immaterial. The question is one of a witness’ place of temporary sojourn, not of his domicile. Cf. Frost v. Barber (C. C.) 173 F. 848; Bagdan Milk Co. v. Dairymen’s League Co-operative Association (D. C.) 44 F.(2d) 855. This is obvious because the civil subpcena does not run beyond 100 miles from the place of the trial. U. S. v. Southern Pacific Co. (D. C.) 230 F. 270, 272; Russell v. Ashley, 21 Fed. Cas. 33, 34, No. 12150, and note.

If witness is available at time of trial, of course, the deposition cannot be used. Objecting party must show availability. Russell v. Ashley, 21 Fed. Cas. 33, 34, No. 12150; Merrill v. Dawson, 17 Fed. Cas. 86, 97, No. 9469; Patapsco Ins. Co. v. Southgate, 5 Pet. 607, 617, 8 L. Ed. 243.

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

WOOLSEY, District Judge.

This motion is denied in all respects.

I. The question here involves the .suppression of the deposition, taken under title 28, U. S. Code, § 639 (28 USCA § 639) formerly Rev. Stat. § 863, of a witness who is a state employee engaged in work as inspector of motor vehicles for New York State, with official headquarters at Albany, and temporary residence also in that city.

II. The fact that the legal residence of witness is in New York City is immaterial. The question is one of a witness’ place of temporary sojourn, not of his domicile. Cf. Frost v. Barber (C. C.) 173 F. 848; Bagdan Milk Co. v. Dairymen’s League Co-operative Association (D. C.) 44 F.(2d) 855. This is obvious because the civil subpcena does not run beyond 100 miles from the place of the trial. U. S. v. Southern Pacific Co. (D. C.) 230 F. 270, 272; Russell v. Ashley, 21 Fed. Cas. 33, 34, No. 12150, and note.

If witness is available at time of trial, of course, the deposition cannot be used. Objecting party must show availability. Russell v. Ashley, 21 Fed. Cas. 33, 34, No. 12150; Merrill v. Dawson, 17 Fed. Cas. 86, 97, No. 9469; Patapsco Ins. Co. v. Southgate, 5 Pet. 607, 617, 8 L. Ed. 243.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 F.2d 474, 1931 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seiden-v-concordia-fire-ins-co-of-milwaukee-nysd-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack