General
Henry McCready, Respondent, v. Friend C. Haight and I. Marshall Freese, Appellants (Two cases)
22 A.D. 632·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1897·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Henry McCready, Respondent, v. Friend C. Haight and I. Marshall Freese, Appellants (Two cases).
Orders affirmed, with ten dollars costs on one appeal and disbursements on both.—Appeal from an order denying the defendants’ motion to vacate and set aside an order requiring the defendant Friend C. Haight to appear and submit to an examination before trial.—
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
Per Curiam:
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 o‘f 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.