Vernon v. Creighton

New York Supreme Court

Vernon v. Creighton

11 N.Y.S. 492, 33 N.Y. St. Rep. 822, 58 Hun 604, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2188

DecidedOctober 24, 1890

StatusPublished

This text of 11 N.Y.S. 492 (Vernon v. Creighton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Vernon v. Creighton, 11 N.Y.S. 492, 33 N.Y. St. Rep. 822, 58 Hun 604, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2188 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Daniels, J.

The note upon which this action has been brought was made and indorsed by the defendant, J. Blakely Creighton, for the sum of $1,500. It is alleged to have been also indorsed by A. Delmont Jones, and delivered to the plaintiffs. The note is stated in the affidavit of the maker to have been delivered to Jones to be by him delivered for the maker to Charles T. Russell; but he failed to make that delivery of il^ and wrongfully appropriated it, by transferring it to the plaintiffs. The order for their examination was made upon an affidavit similar to those upon which the other orders were made; and the examination was restricted in the same manner. The necessity for the plaintiffs’ examination has been presented by the same statements as have been made for that object in the other two cases, (ubi supra',) and the same disposition should therefore be made of this appeal, which was argued with the others. The order should therefore be reversed, but without costs, but with the disbursements on the appeal in favor of the defendant, appealing. All concur.

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

Daniels, J.

The note upon which this action has been brought was made and indorsed by the defendant, J. Blakely Creighton, for the sum of $1,500. It is alleged to have been also indorsed by A. Delmont Jones, and delivered to the plaintiffs. The note is stated in the affidavit of the maker to have been delivered to Jones to be by him delivered for the maker to Charles T. Russell; but he failed to make that delivery of il^ and wrongfully appropriated it, by transferring it to the plaintiffs. The order for their examination was made upon an affidavit similar to those upon which the other orders were made; and the examination was restricted in the same manner. The necessity for the plaintiffs’ examination has been presented by the same statements as have been made for that object in the other two cases, (ubi supra',) and the same disposition should therefore be made of this appeal, which was argued with the others. The order should therefore be reversed, but without costs, but with the disbursements on the appeal in favor of the defendant, appealing. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 N.Y.S. 492, 33 N.Y. St. Rep. 822, 58 Hun 604, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vernon-v-creighton-nysupct-1890.