Seligman v. Real Estate Trust Co.
New York Supreme Court
Petition for discovery and inspection. This action was brought to recover the alleged value of certain stocks and bonds, which, the complaint sets forth, were owned by the plaintiff, and were deposited with the defendant by them, under an agreement that they should1 be delivered to one, T: 0. Bates, upon payment for account of the plaintiff of $70,313.63, with interest from January 7, 1882, less 10 per cent., and which it is alleged defendant in violation of said agreement…
Read the full summary
Petition for discovery and inspection. This action was brought to recover the alleged value of certain stocks and bonds, which, the complaint sets forth, were owned by the plaintiff, and were deposited with the defendant by them, under an agreement that they should1 be delivered to one, T: 0. Bates, upon payment for account of the plaintiff of $70,313.63, with interest from January 7, 1882, less 10 per cent., and which it is alleged defendant in violation of said agreement delivered to the said T. G. Bates, without requiring the payment of the said amount. ■ The answer denied the material…
1Opinion of the CourtBarrett, J.
The rule contended for by defendants is that which prevailed in chancery. Even under the re» *215vised statutes it might have been difficult to obtain the discovery here sought. Under the Code, however, and especially under the Code of Civil Proeeedure, the practice is more liberal and just. As long ago as 1849, it was held (in Powers v. Elmendorf, 4 How. Pr. 60; s. c., 2 Code R. 44), that the court had power to compel a discovery, on plaintiffs motion, of the defendant’s documentary evidence. Judge Hakkis’s reasoning is clear and convincing; and the case lias never since been overruled.*
The…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Powers v. ElmendorfNew York Supreme Court · 1849
3Cited by1 opinion
- DeKoven v. ZiegfeldAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1906