McCready v. Haight
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Orders affirmed, with ten dollars costs on one appeal and disbursements on both.—Appeal from an order denying the defendants’ motion to vacate and set aside an order requiring the defendant Friend C. Haight to appear and submit to an examination before trial.—
1Per curiam
This motion was properly denied The case in all its substantial aspects falls within the decision in Talbot v. Doran & Wright Co. (16 Daly, 174). This case is •also supported by other authorities. (Miller v. Kent, 59 How. Pr. 321; Judah v. Lane, 12 N. Y. St. Repr. 130.) These authorities are •conclusive o‘f plaintiff’s right to have the •examination asked for. The appeal from the order denying defendants’ motion to change the place of trial from Queens to ‘New York county, should also be affirmed. Nothing appears in the papers which requires us to interfere with the discretion of the ■court…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Miller v. KentNew York Supreme Court · 1880
- Talbot v. Doran & Wright Co.New York Court of Common Pleas · 1890
- Daley v. HellmanNew York Supreme Court · 1891
3Cited by2 opinions
- Quinn v. Brooklyn Heights RailroadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1903
- Quinn v. Brooklyn Heights RailroadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1903