Videtto v. Dudley

The Superior Court of New York City

Videtto v. Dudley

24 Jones & S. 600

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedMarch 5, 1889

StatusPublished

This text of 24 Jones & S. 600 (Videtto v. Dudley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Videtto v. Dudley, 24 Jones & S. 600 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

The Court (Truax, J., writing and Sedgwick, Ch. J., concurring)

held “ that it was not necessary to allege in the moving papers that there were no other witnesses by whom he could establish the facts sought to be proved by the party; that the Code did not require such an allegation; "that the moving party has a right if he sees fit to call his adversary to prove his case; ” also held “ that an allegation that the action is brought [601]*601to recover damages for a personal injury resulting from defendant’s negligence was a sufficient statement of the nature of the action.” The order was reversed.

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

The Court (Truax, J., writing and Sedgwick, Ch. J., concurring)

held “ that it was not necessary to allege in the moving papers that there were no other witnesses by whom he could establish the facts sought to be proved by the party; that the Code did not require such an allegation; "that the moving party has a right if he sees fit to call his adversary to prove his case; ” also held “ that an allegation that the action is brought [601]*601to recover damages for a personal injury resulting from defendant’s negligence was a sufficient statement of the nature of the action.” The order was reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 Jones & S. 600, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/videtto-v-dudley-nysuperctnyc-1889.