Burdell v. Burdell
The Superior Court of New York City
James Buedell was examined on the 1st of July, 1852, de bene esse, as a witness on the part of the plaintiff, pursuant to 2 R. S. § 392. Defendant’s attorney was duly served with the order for, and attended at such examination and cross-examined the witness.
Read the full summary
James Buedell was examined on the 1st of July, 1852, de bene esse, as a witness on the part of the plaintiff, pursuant to 2 R. S. § 392. Defendant’s attorney was duly served with the order for, and attended at such examination and cross-examined the witness. When the deposition was concluded and certified, plaintiff’s attorney handed it to his clerk, directed him to make a copy of it, file the original within the ten days, and serve notice on defendant’s attorney that it was so filed. The clerk copied it, and, on the 10th of July, by mistake, filed with the clerk of the court the copy instead…
1Opinion of the CourtBosworth, J.
All the proceedings preliminary to the taking of the deposition conform strictly to the provisions of the statute. The defendant’s attorney was present upon the éxami*626nation of the witness, and cross-examined him. It was certified by the officer before whom the examination was had, on the day the examination took place. Within ten days thereafter, a copy of the deposition was (by mistake) filed instead of the original. At the earliest moment after the mistake was discovered, the plaintiff moves the court for an order directing it to be filed mmo pro tamo.. It is clear that the order should be…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Richardson v. GereNew York Supreme Court · 1839
3Cited by1 opinion
- Bank of Silver Creek v. BrowningNew York Supreme Court · 1858