Tallmadge v. Tallmadge

New York Court of Chancery

Tallmadge v. Tallmadge

2 Barb. Ch. 290

DecidedApril 7, 1847

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Barb. Ch. 290 (Tallmadge v. Tallmadge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tallmadge v. Tallmadge, 2 Barb. Ch. 290 (N.Y. 1847).

Pincite

Opinion

The Chancellor.

The complainant having examined Mr. Tallmadge as a witness, the defendant Cushman had a right to .cross-examine him, as a matter of course, and without an order to that effect. If he was examined as a party merely, he could only be examined as against himself, and could not be cross-examined by his own counsel. But if his testimony can, by any possibility, affect the rights of Cushman, he is made a witness in the cause, and consequently Cushman has a right to «cross-examine him.

-Order according to prayer of petition.

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

The Chancellor.

The complainant having examined Mr. Tallmadge as a witness, the defendant Cushman had a right to .cross-examine him, as a matter of course, and without an order to that effect. If he was examined as a party merely, he could only be examined as against himself, and could not be cross-examined by his own counsel. But if his testimony can, by any possibility, affect the rights of Cushman, he is made a witness in the cause, and consequently Cushman has a right to «cross-examine him.

-Order according to prayer of petition.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Barb. Ch. 290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tallmadge-v-tallmadge-nychanct-1847.