General
John M'Vickar v. Oliver Woolcot
1 Cole. & Cai. Cas. 501·New York Supreme Court·1805·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
John M'Vickar v. Oliver Woolcot.
HOPKINS, in consequence of the death of a witness to be examined on a commission sent to England, and sued out early in the last spring, moved, on behalf of the defendant, to amend by inserting the name of a new witness, who could prove the fact the testimony of the deceased would have gone to establish, or to be at liberty to issue a new commission.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
Were we to permit the amendment, the opposite party might lose the benefit of cross-examining ; for the interrogatories exhibited to one, might not be proper to administer to another, from whom it might be wished to extract new evidence. ° The first part of the motion must, therefore, be denied ; but you may take a new commission at your peril, without, however, any stay of proceedings on the partrof the plaintiff.