Bloom v. Pond'S Extract Co.
The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo
At chambers. Action by Moses E. Bloom against the Pond’s Extract Company to recover $500 damages for breach of a contract whereby defendant employed plaintiff to repaint the signs of defendant along the line of the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad, between New York city and the city of Bridgeport, Conn. Plaintiff procured an order for the examination before trial of defendant, through its treasurer.
Read the full summary
At chambers. Action by Moses E. Bloom against the Pond’s Extract Company to recover $500 damages for breach of a contract whereby defendant employed plaintiff to repaint the signs of defendant along the line of the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad, between New York city and the city of Bridgeport, Conn. Plaintiff procured an order for the examination before trial of defendant, through its treasurer. Edward O. Stanley, so as to enable plaintiff to prepare for trial, which order defendant moves to vacate. The affidavit on which the order was procured was as .follows: “Moses E. Bloom,…
1Opinion of the CourtMcAdam, J.
The necessity for the examination of the defendant’s treasurer as a witness before trial is that the fact sought to be proved, i. e., whether Evans, who made the contract on behalf of the defendant, had authority to make it, is peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendant. Manufacturing Co. v. Sutro, (Sup.) 6 N. Y. Supp. 384. The plaintiff need not allege that there are no other witnesses by whom the fact may be proved. Videtto v. Dudley, (Super. N. Y.) 4 N. Y. Supp. 437. The plaintiff has made out a fair case for the examination required. Bradley v. De Goicouria, 12 Daly, 397; Be Witt v.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Herbage v. . City of UticaNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
- Bradley v. De GoicouriaNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1884
- Glen Cove Manufacturing Co. v. SutroNew York Supreme Court · 1889
- Videtto v. DudleyThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo · 1889
3Cited by1 opinion
- Drake v. Weinman & Co.New York Court of Common Pleas · 1895