Bonesteel v. Lynde
New York Supreme Court
Motion to strike out complaint under § 394 of the Code. After issue joined, the action was referred to E. Griffin, sole referee, to hear and decide the same. The trial before the referee commenced on the first day of September, 1852, and after some evidence had been given on that day, it appears to have been adjourned until the 16th day of November following.
Read the full summary
Motion to strike out complaint under § 394 of the Code. After issue joined, the action was referred to E. Griffin, sole referee, to hear and decide the same. The trial before the referee commenced on the first day of September, 1852, and after some evidence had been given on that day, it appears to have been adjourned until the 16th day of November following. On the day last mentioned, and a short time before the resumption of the trial, the defendants caused the plaintiff to be subpoenaed to appear and give evidence, and to produce upon the trial a certain paper, being a lease between the…
1Opinion of the Court
Welles, Justice.
There is no escaping the conclusion, from all the facts in the case, that the plaintiff, upon learning that the defendants were taking measures to have the lease and inventory in question produced upon the trial for the purpose of being used as evidence, set himself at work to prevent it; and with that view fraudulently and surreptitiously obtained the possession of them, and thereby succeeded in depriving the defendants of the benefit of their production. The means to which he resorted in order to effectuate this object, was a flagrant insult to the law, and the authority and…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Mitchell's CaseNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1861
- Wertheim v. Continental Ry. & Trust Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1883
- De Bary v. StanleyNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1874
- Woods v. De FiganiereThe Superior Court of New York City · 1863
- Davis v. FlaggNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1888
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.