Wright v. Jessup

3 Duer 642
The Superior Court of New York City·Decided March 25, 1854·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

[643]*643Motion on the part of the plaintiff for a commission, to England to examine, without naming them, such witnesses as might be produced before the commissioners.. It appeared that the case had been at issue for some months, and had several times been noticed for trial. Held, that the general rule, that the witnesses must be named in the commission, was never departed from, except under very special circumstances, and never when by reasonable diligence the names might have been ascertained. Here the laches in making the motion was not excused in the affidavit on which it was founded. The motion was therefore denied, with costs.

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

Wright v. Jessup, 3 Duer 642 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1854).

3 Duer 642 (Wright v. Jessup) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McColl v. Sun Mutual Insurance Co.
44 How. Pr. 452 (New York Court of Appeals, 1872)