Troup v. Haight
New York Court of Chancery
PETITION of the plamtifi, stating, that interrogate)mes, on the part of the defendants, were served on the solicitor for the plaintiff, on the 19th of August last. That they referred to a vast number of exhibits and vouchers, copies of which were not served.
Read the full summary
PETITION of the plamtifi, stating, that interrogate)mes, on the part of the defendants, were served on the solicitor for the plaintiff, on the 19th of August last. That they referred to a vast number of exhibits and vouchers, copies of which were not served. That the plaintiff cannot understand the object or meaning of the interrogatories, without seeing the exhibits, or having copies of them, nor can he exhibit correct and pertinent cross interrogatories; and it is necessary, as he is advised by his counsel, that cross interrogatories should be filed. He prayed for an order, that the…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The counsel for the defendants consents to enlarge the time for examining the witnesses, Cameron and Fellows, according to the plaintiff’s motion 5 and the first question is, whether the examination of those witnesses shall be transferred from one examiner to another ; from Mr. Griffin, at Utica, to Mr. Whiting, at Geneva. The plaintiff puts it upon the ground of being more convenient and cheaper, and that his interrogatories are filed with Mr. Whiting. On the other hand, the defendants have selected Mr. Griffin for their examiner, and filed the interrogatories and exhibits on…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hendricks v. RobinsonNew York Court of Chancery · 1817
3Cited by2 opinions
- Van Hook v. PendletonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1848
- Culp v. CulpCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1905