Hayden v. Gold Seal Products Co.
New York Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtRodenbeck, J.
On the authority of Teall v. Roeser (206 App. Div. 371) the plaintiffs are entitled to an examination before trial in order to frame their complaint. The plaintiffs might commence an action in equity for an accounting, or sue for damages, and they are entitled to have the examination in order to determine the form of their action. “ The form of the action to be brought in this case is material, as on it will depend the right of the plaintiff *334to a jury trial.” (Teall v. Roeser, supra, 373.) The case of Flaacke v. Peck (212 App. Div. 883) and other similar cases, in which an examination was…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Teall v. RoeserAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1923
- Lunt v. Two Hundred Forty Goodman Street South, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1931
- Flaacke v. PeckAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1925
3Cited by1 opinion
- In re DewhirstNew York Supreme Court · 1957