Aikin v. Martin
New York Court of Chancery
A motion was made in this cause, and in four other suits, brought by the same complainants, against different defendants, for an order that H. Y. D. Yan Epps appear before the examiner, atld produce a certain agreement, in his possession, as evidence on the part of the defendants in the several suits respectively.
Read the full summary
A motion was made in this cause, and in four other suits, brought by the same complainants, against different defendants, for an order that H. Y. D. Yan Epps appear before the examiner, atld produce a certain agreement, in his possession, as evidence on the part of the defendants in the several suits respectively. By the affidavits, and the certificate of the examiner, it appeared that Yan Epps, although not a party to either of the suits, was interested in favor of the complainants, in the subject matter of litigation in all of them, and that the agreement in question was material to the…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
From the papers before me oh this application, I am satisfied that Yan Epps never consented to part with the possession of the agreement, for the purpose of allowing it to be retained, as an exhibit, either by the examiner or by the counsel of the defendants. And I think it is. also fairly inferri-ble, from the affidavits, that the defendants’ counsel, at the time Yan Epps was called upon to produce this agreement, and to deliver it to the examiner as evidence, was not prepared to prove its due execution; so as to make if evidence for any purpose.
Where a deed or instrument…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Wilson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Wilson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- In re MakamesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1933
- McLean v. Prudential Steamship Co.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 1965
- Wertheim v. Continental Ry. & Trust Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1883
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.