Holgate v. Palmer
New York Court of Chancery
This was an appeal from a decision of the vice chancellor of the fifth circuit, suppressing the deposition of the defendant, Palmer, and refusing to suffer it to he read as evidence in behalf of his co-defendant, D. Burt, under the following circumstances : In October, 1834, the defendant, Andrews, purchased a narrow strip of land in Buffalo, between six and seven hundred feet long, for the price of $650, which is described in the deed and contract and mortgage hereafter…
Read the full summary
This was an appeal from a decision of the vice chancellor of the fifth circuit, suppressing the deposition of the defendant, Palmer, and refusing to suffer it to he read as evidence in behalf of his co-defendant, D. Burt, under the following circumstances : In October, 1834, the defendant, Andrews, purchased a narrow strip of land in Buffalo, between six and seven hundred feet long, for the price of $650, which is described in the deed and contract and mortgage hereafter mentioned, as bounded on the one side thereof by a street sixty-six feet wide. Andrews after-wards authorized the defendant…
1Opinion of the Court
The following opinion was delivered by the vice chancellor upon the application to suppress Palmer’s deposition.
Gridley, V. C.
Palmer has suffered a decree pro con*464fesso ; and the first question is whether his deposition, taken under a stipulation on the 26th September, 1839, is competent for his co-defendants or one of them. The other defendants it seems had omitted to enter an order under the 73d rule, for the purpose of examining Palmer as a witness, and upon the day in question, the defendant Burt executed to Palmer, a release and thereupon claimed to examine him as a witness. A stipulation…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Gage v. StewartNew York Supreme Court · 1809
3Cited by3 opinions
- Munson v. HegemanNew York Supreme Court · 1850
- Pingree v. CoffinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1858
- Smith v. KelleyNew York Supreme Court · 1884