Watts v. Knevals

The Superior Court of New York City

Watts v. Knevals

24 Jones & S. 592, 18 N.Y. St. Rep. 879, 56 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 592

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedOctober 25, 1888

StatusPublished

This text of 24 Jones & S. 592 (Watts v. Knevals) 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

Watts v. Knevals, 24 Jones & S. 592, 18 N.Y. St. Rep. 879, 56 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 592 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The application for the discovery, was professed to be made for the purpose of enabling the defendants to frame an answer. The affidavit of the principal defendant shows that the answer can be made without a discovery, for he avers that the agreement or alleged agreement asked to be discovered, was never made by him, whether or not there should be relief after issue joined, is not before the court.

Further, the court below was right in setting aside the order upon its finding from the affidavits that the plaintiff had not the possession or control of the instrument in question: § 806 Code Civil Procedure. The proof on this subject was of such a nature, that the conclusion of the court below, as to this fact, cannot be reversed.

The order should be affirmed with $10 costs and disbursements to be taxed.

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

Per Curiam.

The application for the discovery, was professed to be made for the purpose of enabling the defendants to frame an answer. The affidavit of the principal defendant shows that the answer can be made without a discovery, for he avers that the agreement or alleged agreement asked to be discovered, was never made by him, whether or not there should be relief after issue joined, is not before the court.

Further, the court below was right in setting aside the order upon its finding from the affidavits that the plaintiff had not the possession or control of the instrument in question: § 806 Code Civil Procedure. The proof on this subject was of such a nature, that the conclusion of the court below, as to this fact, cannot be reversed.

The order should be affirmed with $10 costs and disbursements to be taxed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 Jones & S. 592, 18 N.Y. St. Rep. 879, 56 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watts-v-knevals-nysuperctnyc-1888.