Legal Opinion

Farquharson v. Brokaw

New York Supreme Court

Decided April 15, 1910PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Motion to vacate an order for the examination of defendant before trial.

1Opinion of the CourtPutnam, J.

Plaintiffs sue for necessaries alleged to have been furnished to defendant’s wife between November 16, 1908, and January 21, 1909. Among- other defenses, it is claimed that the articles furnished were not necessaries; that the wife had been amply supplied by her husband with funds, and also that, since December, 1908, the defendant’s wife lived separate and apart from him, receiving a sufficient- weekly allowance that he provided.

Plaintiffs applied to examine defendant before trial (in Nassau county) seeking to prove that the articles delivered were necessaries, and that defendant did not…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Wanamaker v. . WeaverNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
  2. Schweinburg v. AltmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1909
  3. Constable v. RosenerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1903

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Gimbel Bros. v. SteinmanCity of New York Municipal Court · 1952
  2. Amplo v. Di MauroSuffolk County District Court · 1967
  3. Taylor v. BrownCity of New York Municipal Court · 1949
  4. Abraham & Straus v. TellerCivil Court of the City of New York · 1962
  5. Morse v. LewisOhio Court of Appeals · 1921

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API