Golin v. Town of Mooers
New York Supreme Court
Appeal from special term, Clinton county. Action by Charles Golin and another against the town of Mooers, for injuries sustained owing to an alleged defect in one of defendant’s bridges. Defendant obtained an order for plaintiffs to appear and be examined, under Code Civil Proc. §§ 870, 872. At a special term, plaintiffs moved to vacate this order; and from an order denying their motion they appeal.
1Opinion of the CourtLearned, P. J.
This cause is not at issue, no answer having been served.
The defendant desires to examine the plaintiffs as to the facts and circumstances relating to the accident, the location of the bridge, the part that was defective, the parts 'of the machine which were broken, the names of the persons with whom plaintiffs had contracts, the names of the persons present at the accident. It is plain that such an examination is not needed to enable defendant to answer. A general denial would put these matters in issue. If the defendant needs something in the nature of a bill of particulars, this is not the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Beach ex rel. Beach v. Mayor of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1878
- Weston v. ReichNew York Supreme Court · 1888
3Cited by3 opinions
- De Lacy v. WalcottThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo · 1891
- Fluchtwanger v. DessarNew York Supreme Court · 1889
- Thebaud v. HumeThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo · 1891