Wagner v. Haight & Freese Co.
New York Supreme Court
Action by Paul A. Wagner against the Haight & Freese Company. On motion by defendant to vacate an order for the examination of certain officers of defendant before trial.
1Opinion of the CourtKruse, J.
The order to examine a party in an action at the instance of his adversary is discretionary, and not a matter of right (Jenkins v. Putnam, 106 N. Y. 272, 12 N. E. 613), and it is now generally required that it be shown that such examination is necessary before the trial (Hay v. Zeiger, 50 App. Div. 462, 64 N. Y. Supp. 202; Williams v. Folsom, 52 Hun, 68, 5 N. Y. Supp. 211; Skinner v. Steele, 88 Hun, 307, 34 N. Y. Supp. 748). It seems, however, that the mere fact that the party to be examined may be present at the trial is not of itself sufficient to refuse the order. Presbrey v. Public…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Jenkins v. . PutnamNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
- Carter v. GoodNew York Supreme Court · 1890
- Williams v. FolsomNew York Supreme Court · 1889
- Skinner v. SteeleNew York Supreme Court · 1895
- Bloodgood v. SlaybackAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1901
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Haight v. Haight & Freese Co.New York Supreme Court · 1905