Sherwood v. Dolen
New York Supreme Court
Appeal from an order denying a motion to compel the defendant to subscribe his name to his examination in supplementary proceedings. It appeared that in obedience to an order of the county judge of Westchester county, the defendant Gilchriest appeared before a referee, and was examined concerning his property. At the close of his examination, plaintiff’s attorney moved that the defendant be required to subscribe the minutes of his testimony, and the referee so ordered.
Read the full summary
Appeal from an order denying a motion to compel the defendant to subscribe his name to his examination in supplementary proceedings. It appeared that in obedience to an order of the county judge of Westchester county, the defendant Gilchriest appeared before a referee, and was examined concerning his property. At the close of his examination, plaintiff’s attorney moved that the defendant be required to subscribe the minutes of his testimony, and the referee so ordered. The defendant objected to obeying such order, upon the ground that the minutes, as he alleged, did. not correctly set forth…
1Opinion of the Court
Gilbert, J.:
The objection of the defendant Gilchriest to subscribing the minutes of his examination was, that: “ the minutes did not correctly set forth what he had said, and represented him as saying what he had not said, and which he claimed to be untrue.” The papers do not show that the objection was not well founded in fact. But it is claimed that notwithstanding the minutes do not record what the deponent actually stated, the error can be corrected by a supplementary statement at the end of the deposition. We think that is an erroneous position. Persons examined under oath, are entitled…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Corning v. Tooker & LadueNew York Supreme Court · 1850