McVickar v. Greenleaf
The Superior Court of New York City
Appeal from an order made at a special term. This action having been commenced, by the service of a summons upon some of the defendants, including the defendant Edward B. Ketchum, the plaintiff, upon an affidavit of such fact, and also of the materiality of, and necessity for, the testimony of the defendant Edward B. Ketchum, to be taken before the trial, procured an order that the plaintiff be allowed to examine said defendant as a witness in the action, on two days’ notice…
Read the full summary
Appeal from an order made at a special term. This action having been commenced, by the service of a summons upon some of the defendants, including the defendant Edward B. Ketchum, the plaintiff, upon an affidavit of such fact, and also of the materiality of, and necessity for, the testimony of the defendant Edward B. Ketchum, to be taken before the trial, procured an order that the plaintiff be allowed to examine said defendant as a witness in the action, on two days’ notice to him and the other adverse parties. Cause was shown against, this order, that no copy of the complaint in the action,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court;
Monell, J.
The chapter of the Code relative to the examination of an adverse party, as a witness, has undergone few amendments, and is now substantially the same as when originally enacted. (Laws 1848, p. 559.) The only material change is in striking out the words, “in respect to any matter pertinent to the issue,” in the 349th, now 395th, ■ section.
The oral examination of parties as witnesses, is a novelty-introduced by the Code. Previously, discoveries in aid of actions at law, were obtainable only by bill in chancery. In abolishing the Court of Chancery, and all distinctions…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Glenney v. World Mutual Life InsuranceThe Superior Court of New York City · 1875
- Winston v. EnglishThe Superior Court of New York City · 1973