President v. Hillard
New York Supreme Court
moved for a rule upon 1 # , the plaintiffs, that they furnish to the defendant’s attorney C0P'es °f certain entries made in their books relating to the note which they had declared on in this cause, or allow some proper person to inspect and take copies of their books, He cited Cliff ord v. Taylor, (1 Taunt.- 167;) Gold-' sehmidt v. Marryat, (1 Campb.
Read the full summary
moved for a rule upon 1 # , the plaintiffs, that they furnish to the defendant’s attorney C0P'es °f certain entries made in their books relating to the note which they had declared on in this cause, or allow some proper person to inspect and take copies of their books, He cited Cliff ord v. Taylor, (1 Taunt.- 167;) Gold-' sehmidt v. Marryat, (1 Campb. Rep. 561,2;) Potts v, Adair, (1 Anstr. 259,) and Gabbit v. Cavendish, (2 Anstr. 547.) This is not a motion by corpo-rators, who have an interest in the books sought to be in- ° . spec ted ; but by a mere stranger, who has no right to look *n*°…
1Opinion of the Court
Curia.
It seems by one of the cases cited in support of this motion, that the English courts go great lengths in granting the description of order applied for. It is granted by a judge at chambers ; and the party is compelled to furnish evidence to the full extent of what he would be bound to do on a bill of discovery. This practice is of recent origin in England. It has not been adopted by this court ; and we have often declined to follow it, on motion to compel the party to furnish evidence in this way against himself, except in certain cases ; as where the instrument to be inspected or…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Willis v. BaileyNew York Supreme Court · 1822
3Cited by2 opinions
- Wertheim v. Continental Ry. & Trust Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1883
- Vieller v. OppenheimNew York Supreme Court · 1894