Long v. Straus
Indiana Supreme Court
From the De Kalb Circuit Court.
1Opinion of the CourtElliott, J.
This case is here for the second time. Long v. Straus, 107 Ind. 94. The questions presented by the present appeal arise on the ruling denying a new trial.
It is insisted by appellant’s counsel that the court erred in refusing to suppress the deposition of Edmund D. Meagher because sufficient notice was not given, but we think counsel are in error. The notice given accomplished its purpose, for it secured the attendance of all the parties at the proper place and time, and it is quite clear, therefore, that the appellant can not successfully assert that the time intervening between the service…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Long v. StrausIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
- Lake v. TysenNew York Court of Appeals · 1852
- Gregg v. Union County National BankIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
- Dodds v. DoddsIndiana Supreme Court · 1877
- Wilkins v. FergusonIndiana Supreme Court · 1874
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- S.F. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Superior Court of S.F.California Supreme Court · 1908
- Barrett v. Singer Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1979
- Scott v. PennSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1900
- Swatts v. BowenIndiana Supreme Court · 1895
- Pagano v. United Jersey BankSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1996
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.