Shaefer v. International Power Co.

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

Shaefer v. International Power Co.

157 F. 896, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 4844

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

DecidedAugust 20, 1907

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 157 F. 896 (Shaefer v. International Power 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

Shaefer v. International Power Co., 157 F. 896, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 4844 (circtsdny 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

This is a question of practice, not of substantive law; and the practice, which was settled for this circuit in Gray v. Schneider (C. C.) 119 Fed. 474, and Cameron Lumber Co. v. Droney (C. C.) 132 Fed. 304, should not be abandoned because of the decision in the Third circuit of Cassatt v. Mitchell Coal & Coke Co., 150 Fed. 32, 81 C. C. A. 80, especially so as inspection is granted, in proper cases, in a majority of the other circuits. Bloede v. Bancroft Sons Co. (C. C.) 98 Fed. 175.

Suit was brought in England in the name of defendant against the Diesel Engine Company, which set up a counterclaim and prevailed, entering judgment against defendant. Plaintiff, as assignee of the Diesel Company, is suing on that judgment, and defendant avers that the English suit was brought without its authority and that it was not a party thereto. The burden is upon the plaintiff here to show that the International Power Company directed or authorized the bringing of that suit, and, presumably, that can be done only by entries in the books and papers of defendant. Possibly evidence therein contained may have to be supplemented by other proof. The case is peculiarly one in which inspection should be allowed, and the application is confined closely to the precise point sought to be proved.

The motion is granted, order to be settled on notice, unless counsel can agree as to its terms.

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

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

This is a question of practice, not of substantive law; and the practice, which was settled for this circuit in Gray v. Schneider (C. C.) 119 Fed. 474, and Cameron Lumber Co. v. Droney (C. C.) 132 Fed. 304, should not be abandoned because of the decision in the Third circuit of Cassatt v. Mitchell Coal & Coke Co., 150 Fed. 32, 81 C. C. A. 80, especially so as inspection is granted, in proper cases, in a majority of the other circuits. Bloede v. Bancroft Sons Co. (C. C.) 98 Fed. 175.

Suit was brought in England in the name of defendant against the Diesel Engine Company, which set up a counterclaim and prevailed, entering judgment against defendant. Plaintiff, as assignee of the Diesel Company, is suing on that judgment, and defendant avers that the English suit was brought without its authority and that it was not a party thereto. The burden is upon the plaintiff here to show that the International Power Company directed or authorized the bringing of that suit, and, presumably, that can be done only by entries in the books and papers of defendant. Possibly evidence therein contained may have to be supplemented by other proof. The case is peculiarly one in which inspection should be allowed, and the application is confined closely to the precise point sought to be proved.

The motion is granted, order to be settled on notice, unless counsel can agree as to its terms.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 F. 896, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 4844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shaefer-v-international-power-co-circtsdny-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack