Legal Opinion

Irwin Co. v. Tide Pub. Co.

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided May 17, 1952PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WEINFELD, District Judge.

The present papers are insufficient to require a deviation from the usual rule that a plaintiff, having selected a forum, must be prepared to bear the necessary costs of prosecuting his claim, and, therefore, should submit to examination at his own expense in the forum he has chosen. See Morrison Export Co. Ltd. v. Goldstone, D.C., 12 F.R.D. 258. Assuming that the corporate plaintiff is experiencing serious financial difficulties, no information as to the financial condition of the individual plaintiff, whose deposition is sought, is set forth other than the statement…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Morrison Export Co. v. GoldstoneDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1952
  2. Worth v. Trans World Films, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1951

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Ormond Beach First Nat. Bank v. JM MONTGOMERY ROOF. CO.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1966
  2. Marlowe v. First State Bank of JacksboroCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1962
  3. Taejon Bristle Mfg. Co. v. Omnex Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1953
  4. Pierre v. Bernuth, Lembcke Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1957
  5. Linneen v. Cunard Steamship Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1956

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API