Ahoyke v. Wolcott
New York Supreme Court
Motion to vacate an order for discovery. This action was brought by Ahoyke, a Chinaman, against two defendants—Wolcott and Westray. The plaintiff having obtained an order under the Revised Statutes requiring defendants to produce certain letters; the defendants now moved, upon affidavit by each of them denying that the papers called for were in the possession or under the control of either of them, to vacate the order.
1Opinion of the CourtDavies, J.
—Section 33 of the Revised Statutes referred to (2 Dev. Stats., 3 ed. 262, § 33), directs that any order for discovery granted in pursuance of the provisions of the statute may be vacated on the following grounds:
1. On satisfactory evidence that it ought not to have been granted.
2. On the discovery sought being made.
3. When the party who is called on to make the discovery denies, under oath, the possession or control of the books, papers, &c., ordered to be produced.
Such oath has been made in this case by the parties called on to make the discovery, and as it is made in conformity with the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hoyt v. American Exchange BankThe Superior Court of New York City · 1853
3Cited by4 opinions
- Foren v. DealeyOregon Supreme Court · 1870
- Holly Manuf'g Co. v. VennerNew York Supreme Court · 1895
- Schlesinger v. EllingerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1908
- Sorenson v. BowenOregon Supreme Court · 1953