Legal Opinion

Kelley v. Weber

New York Supreme Court

Decided November 15, 1880PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Motion by defendant to suppress a commission to take testimony. This was an action by Jasper Kelley against Martha Weber, as executrix, &c., and another. The plaintiff, desiring to issue a commission to examine himself and others in Boston, Mass., on interrogatories, obtained consent to a commission to take it.

Read the full summary

Motion by defendant to suppress a commission to take testimony. This was an action by Jasper Kelley against Martha Weber, as executrix, &c., and another. The plaintiff, desiring to issue a commission to examine himself and others in Boston, Mass., on interrogatories, obtained consent to a commission to take it. Pending the negotiations therefor, the defendant’s attorneys stated, to plaintiff’s attorney, that they also wished to examine the plaintiff and other witnesses, and asked for an open commission, and a commissioner named by them. This was agreed to by plaintiff’s attorney, and the…

1Opinion of the CourtLawrence, J.

I do not understand that the letters which were identified before the commissioner are to be considered as having been “produced and-proved” within the meaning of section 901 of the Code, or of the Revised Statutes, as exhibits. In point of fact, the letters were not proved at all. They were merely identified. They cannot be said to have been proved and to have become exhibits until they have been offered and the other side have had an opportunity of cross-examining the witness who has been called to prove their identity. The statute seems to me to refer to papers which have been put in…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Commercial Bank of Pennsylvania v. Union Bank of New-YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1854
  2. Parrott v. ByersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
  3. Humphries v. DawsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1861
  4. Brumskill v. . JamesNew York Court of Appeals · 1854
  5. Hewlett v. . WoodNew York Court of Appeals · 1876

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Decauville Automobile Co. v. Metropolitan BankAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1908

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

Powered by the Exa API