Uhlmann v. Arnholt & Schaeffer Brewing Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania
In Equity. Sur exceptions to answers. Bills in equity by Simon Uhlmann and Frederick Uhlmann against the Germania Brewing Company, the Arnholt & Schaeffer Brewiiig Company, John F. Betz, and John F. Betz, Jr., for discovery and relief. The complainants dispensed with the requirement of an oath to respondents’ answers. Respondents refused to answer, alleging the immateriality of the interrogatories, and the fact that complainant dispensed with the oath to the answer.
Read the full summary
In Equity. Sur exceptions to answers. Bills in equity by Simon Uhlmann and Frederick Uhlmann against the Germania Brewing Company, the Arnholt & Schaeffer Brewiiig Company, John F. Betz, and John F. Betz, Jr., for discovery and relief. The complainants dispensed with the requirement of an oath to respondents’ answers. Respondents refused to answer, alleging the immateriality of the interrogatories, and the fact that complainant dispensed with the oath to the answer. Complainants excepted.
1Opinion of the CourtButler, J.
The respondents have ignored the interrogatories propounded, and put their supposed right to do so on the ground — First, that the interrogatories are immaterial; and, second, that the waiver of an oath dispenses with an answer.
As respects the first proposition, we disagree with the respondents. The criterion of immateriality is not whether affirmative answers will prove the bill, but whether they will tend to prove it. That they will so tend we cannot doubt. This applies to each of the interrogatories. Nothing further need be said on this subject.
The second position — that the waiver of an…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Johnson v. MundySupreme Court of Virginia · 1918
- Tillinghast v. ChaceU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island · 1903
- Whittemore v. PattenU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California · 1897
- Victor G. Bloede Co. v. CarterDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1906