The Emulous

E.D. New York

The Emulous

24 F. 43, 1884 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216

DecidedDecember 1, 1884

StatusPublished

This text of 24 F. 43 (The Emulous) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

The Emulous, 24 F. 43, 1884 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216 (E.D.N.Y. 1884).

Pincite

Opinion

Benedict, J.

This cause was called for hearing some three years ago, when the libelant offered in evidence a deposition taken dc bene ease. The deposition was objected to, and the libelant submitted to the objection on being allowed a continuance and permission to examine the witness anew. The witness not having been re-examined, [44]*44the libelant now, by a new proctor, brings up the ease, and in support of the libel offers the same deposition objected to on the former hearing. ' Having submitted to the objection at the first hearing, he cannot at this late date, and when, as it may be presumed, the witnesses for the other side are scattered, be permitted to question the validity qf the objection once submitted to. The same result would follow if, as the libelant contends, the objection taken at the first trial was sustained by the court, but wrongfully. For it would be unjust to the claimant, who has acted upon the ruling of the court, to permit the libelant, after this long delay, to reopen the question ,raised by the objection to the deposition, and passed on at the first hearing.

There being no evidence-for the libelant except that contained in the deposition referred to, the libel must be dismissed, and with costs.

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

Benedict, J.

This cause was called for hearing some three years ago, when the libelant offered in evidence a deposition taken dc bene ease. The deposition was objected to, and the libelant submitted to the objection on being allowed a continuance and permission to examine the witness anew. The witness not having been re-examined, [44]*44the libelant now, by a new proctor, brings up the ease, and in support of the libel offers the same deposition objected to on the former hearing. ' Having submitted to the objection at the first hearing, he cannot at this late date, and when, as it may be presumed, the witnesses for the other side are scattered, be permitted to question the validity qf the objection once submitted to. The same result would follow if, as the libelant contends, the objection taken at the first trial was sustained by the court, but wrongfully. For it would be unjust to the claimant, who has acted upon the ruling of the court, to permit the libelant, after this long delay, to reopen the question ,raised by the objection to the deposition, and passed on at the first hearing.

There being no evidence-for the libelant except that contained in the deposition referred to, the libel must be dismissed, and with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 F. 43, 1884 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-emulous-nyed-1884.