Legal Opinion

Bolt & Co. v. Gilmore

New York Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1923PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Examination before trial.

1Opinion of the CourtMullan, J.

Upon examination before trial the question arose, can a client be compelled to reveal confidential communications . made to his attorney? It is contended that the form of the statute (Civ. Prac. Act, § 353; Code Civ Pro. § 835) impliedly permits such questions. It seems that there has been no express adjudication upon the point in this state, although there are numerous dicta to the effect that the client is protected by an ancient judge-made rule. Carnes v. Platt, 15 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 337; Whiting v. Barney, 30 N. Y. 330; People v. Cravath, 58 Misc. Rep. *117154; Gage v. Gage, 13 App. Div.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Whiting v. . BarneyNew York Court of Appeals · 1864
  2. Gage v. GageAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1897
  3. People v. CravathNew York Court of General Session of the Peace · 1908

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Mileski v. LockerNew York Supreme Court · 1958
  2. Ohlau v. KleinertNew York Supreme Court · 1923

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

Powered by the Exa API