Hay v. Zeiger
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by the defendant, Charles H. Zeiger, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Kings County Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 21st day of December, 1899, denying the said defendant’s motion to vacate an order for his examination before trial.
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Curiam :
The papers upon which the order for the appellant’s examination was obtained did not show that it was important or necessary that his testimony should be taken before the trial rather than at the trial. It has repeatedly been held that it is essential that such importance or necessity should be made to appear. (Williams v. Folsom, 54 Hun, 308 ; Jenkins v. Putnam, 106 N. Y. 272.) This well-established rule was disregarded in the refusal to vacate the order of examination. The learned judge at Special Term conceded in his opinion that- there were many decisions in the first judicial…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Jenkins v. . PutnamNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
- Williams v. FolsomNew York Supreme Court · 1889
3Cited by6 opinions
- Rosenbaum v. RiceNew York Supreme Court · 1901
- Wagner v. Haight & Freese Co.New York Supreme Court · 1903
- Bagley v. WinslowNew York Supreme Court · 1901
- Caldwell v. LabareeNew York Supreme Court · 1903
- McNamara v. KeeneCity of New York Municipal Court · 1902
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.