Watts v. Knevals

Superior Court of New York

Watts v. Knevals

3 N.Y.S. 548, 1888 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 903

CourtThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo

DecidedOctober 25, 1888

StatusPublished

This text of 3 N.Y.S. 548 (Watts v. Knevals) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Watts v. Knevals, 3 N.Y.S. 548, 1888 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 903 (superctny 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The application for the discovery was professed to be made for the purpose of enabling the defendant 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 dis- < overed, 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. Code Civil Proc. § 806. The proof on this subject was of such a nature that the conclusion -of the court below, as to the 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 defendant 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 dis- < overed, 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. Code Civil Proc. § 806. The proof on this subject was of such a nature that the conclusion -of the court below, as to the fact, cannot be reversed. The order should be affirmed, with $10 costs, and disbursements to be taxed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 N.Y.S. 548, 1888 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watts-v-knevals-superctny-1888.