Legal Opinion

Isenburger v. Arrowhead Mills, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided February 6, 1925PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

Plaintiff served notice, under sections 288, 289'and 290 of the Civil Practice Act, that he desired to take before trial the deposition of defendant’s secretary as an adverse party, "and at the same time he served a subpoena duces tecum. Defendant, appearing specially, moved at Special Term for an order setting aside the service. The motion was made upon the grounds that the service of the notice violated rule 121 of the Rules of Civil Practice, in that the notice was not served “ at least five days before the time specified therein for the taking of the testimony,” and that the person upon…

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. Weisinger v. BerfondNew York Supreme Court · 1958
  2. Faine v. Imported Brands, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1954

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

Powered by the Exa API