Monarch Vacuum Cleaner Co. v. Vacuum Cleaner Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
In Equity. Bill by the Monarch Vacuum Cleaner Company against the Vacuum Cleaner Company. On exceptions for insufficiency to the answer of a corporation in a cause in which the bill had waived answer under oath.
1Opinion of the Court
HAND, District Judge.
[1, 2] I cannot see what possible difference the waiver of the oath makes, because a corporation need not answer under oath anyway. Colgate v. Compagnie Francaise du Telegraphe de Paris (C. C.) 23 Fed. 82; Gamewell Fire Alarm Tel. Co. v. Mayor (C. C.) 31 Fed. 312. Still we all know that a corporation is strbject to discovery, and must make it under its seal. Hence the very vexed and confused question is not open as to the effect upon the extent of discovery of a waiver of the oath.
[3] The first exception is good, because the answer is not full, and the defendant could not…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Colgate v. Compagnie Francaise du Telegraphs de Paris a New YorkU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1885
- Gamewell Fire-Alarm Tel. Co. v. MayorU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1887
- Gaines v. AgnellyU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Louisiana · 1872
- Samples v. BankU.S. Circuit Court for the Southern District of Georgia · 1873