Istok v. Senderling
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
^Appeal by the plaintiff, John Istok, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 23d day of November,, 1906, vacating a prior order for the examination of the defendant Senderling before trial.
1Opinion of the Court
Ingraham, J.:
The action was brought to recover the -damages sustained by the plaintiff as an employee of the Senderling Manufacturing Com- . pany. The complaint alleges that the defendants were doing business under -the firm name and style of The Senderling ■Manufacturing Company. This allegation the defendant denies. Whereupon the fact that these two defendants were doing business under tins corporate name- was an essential fact that the plaintiff was required to prove upon the trial of the action. The plaintiff, therefore, was entitled to examine the defendants to prove such fact. In the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Goldmark v. U. S. Electro-Galvanizing Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1906
3Cited by5 opinions
- McGrath v. BlumenthalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1927
- Ralph v. SchickerRochester City Court · 1937
- Heine v. WellerAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1913
- People v. BinkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1912
- Strodl v. Farish-Stafford Co.City of New York Municipal Court · 1909