Legal Opinion
Cameron v. Rochester & Syracuse Railroad
New York Supreme Court
Decided April 21, 1925PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Rodenbeck, J.:
The examination of a party before trial has been very much liberalized and should not be hedged around with requirements not imposed by statute. It is not confined to an affirmative cause of action or defense (Herbage v. City of TJtica, 109 N. Y. 81), and there is no requirement other than that the evidence sought should be necessary and material. The old decisions limiting the examination have all been swept aside. When the new practice was adopted the framers did not deem it wise to follow the broad lines of the Federal equity practice but provided for a notice which might…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Herbage v. . City of UticaNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
- Victor G. Bloede Co. v. J. P. Devine Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1924
- Friedman v. New York Central RailroadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1923
- O'Gorman v. New York & Queens County Railway Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1904
- Dunn v. . N.Y.C. H.R.R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1913
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Jenks v. JenksMissouri Court of Appeals · 1964
- Enequist v. Brooklyn City RailroadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1926
- Fitzgerald v. PrimmerNew York Supreme Court · 1955