Legal Opinion
Cohn v. Baldwin
New York Supreme Court
Decided December 6, 1893PublishedCited by 5 opinions
Appeal from special term, Albany county. Action by Jacob Cohn against Frank E. Baldwin, Charles A. Baldwin, and Alvi P. Baldwin to recover money alleged to have been lost in wagers on stocks and other securities. From an order denying a motion for a bill of particulars, defendant Frank E. Baldwin appeals.
1Per curiam
We think the affidavit on which the motion for a bill of particulars was made insufficient, being made by the attorney of one of the defendants. The only reason stated why the affidavit of the party was not obtained is as follows:
“That the reason why this affidavit is not made by said defendant is that said defendant is not a resident of or within the county of Albany, which is the county where deponent resides and has his office.”
By the provisions of section 525, Code Civil Proc., a verification to a pleading may be made by the attorney of a party, when absent from the county where the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Isaac v. WilischNew York Supreme Court · 1893
- Hoeninghaus v. ChaleyerNew York Supreme Court · 1889
- Blake v. HarriganNew York Supreme Court · 1890
3Cited by5 opinions
- Mungall v. BursleyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900
- St. Regis Paper Co. v. Santa Clara Lumber Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1906
- Fickinger v. IvesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1905
- Kirkland v. KirklandNew York Supreme Court · 1902
- Sullivan v. WatermanSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1898