Legal Opinion
Middleton v. Boardman
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided November 7, 1924PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Per curiam
Ordinarily this court would be disinclined to allow an appeal to the Court of Appeals from an order relating solely to a question *468of practice. There is, however, a conflict of opinion in the First, Second and Third Departments on the subject of examinations of a party before trial. In this (Second) department the court has followed its decision rendered in Oshinsky v. Gumberg (188 App. Div. 23), in cases which have arisen both before and since the enactment of the new Civil Practice Act. In the Third Department the court has held in the case of Combes v. Maas (209 App. Div. 330) that an…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Oshinsky v. GumbergAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1919
- Shaw v. Samley Realty Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922
- Griffin v. Cunard Steamship Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1913
- Combes v. MaasAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1924
- Bruhl v. NedwellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1914
3Cited by8 opinions
- Fisher v. SmithMichigan Supreme Court · 1932
- Palmer v. HamptonCity of New York Municipal Court · 1927
- Storm v. GairAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1925
- Loring v. Dime Savings Bank of BrooklynAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1936
- Cundill v. A. W. Millhauser Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1930
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.