From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McCready v. Haight

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 1, 1897
22 App. Div. 632 (N.Y. App. Div. 1897)

Opinion

December Term, 1897.


Orders affirmed, with ten dollars costs on one appeal and disbursements on both.


This motion was properly denied. The case in all its substantial aspects falls within the decision in Talbot v. Doran Wright Co. (16 Daly, 174). This case is also supported by other authorities. ( Miller v. Kent, 59 How. Pr. 321; Judah v. Lane, 12 N.Y. St. Repr. 130.) These authorities are conclusive of plaintiff's right to have the examination asked for. The appeal from the order denying defendants' motion to change the place of trial from Queens to New York county, should also be affirmed. Nothing appears in the papers which requires us to interfere with the discretion of the court below in the denial of the motion. It has the support of authority. ( Daley v. Hellman, 16 N.Y. Supp. 689.) The order in each case should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs in one case and disbursements in both. All concurred.


Summaries of

McCready v. Haight

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 1, 1897
22 App. Div. 632 (N.Y. App. Div. 1897)
Case details for

McCready v. Haight

Case Details

Full title:Henry McCready, Respondent, v. Friend C. Haight and I. Marshall Freese…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Dec 1, 1897

Citations

22 App. Div. 632 (N.Y. App. Div. 1897)

Citing Cases

Weidenfeld v. McClure

on the convenience of witnesses and the promotion of justice. In Sparks v. United Traction Co. ( 66 App. Div.…

Quinn v. Brooklyn Heights R.R. Co.

In Daley v. Hellman (16 N.Y. Supp. 689) the General Term, in the district now comprising this department,…