Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
John Clark, Respondent, v. The Manhattan Railway Company, Appellant, 1886 — 102 N.Y. 656 · caselaw · US
Administrative
John Clark, Respondent, v. The Manhattan Railway Company, Appellant
102 N.Y. 656·New York Court of Appeals·1886·NY
All concur.
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 Clark, Respondent, v. The Manhattan Railway Company, Appellant.
(Argued March 16, 1886;
decided March 26, 1886.)
This was an appeal from an order of General Term affirming an order of Special Term, granting a motion to suppress a deposition taken de bene esse.
The motion to suppress was based on the ground that the deposition was read over to and subscribed by the witness in the absence of and without notice to the plaintiff’s attorney.
The following is the mem. of opinion :
“ It is not claimed that any harm or prejudice came to the plaintiff because the deposition was read to and subscribed by the witness in the absence of his counsel. We have carefully considered all the facts appearing in the affidavits and are of opinion that plaintiff’s counsel must be held to have waived his right to be present at or to have notice of the reading of the deposition to the witness on the Monday after it was taken, and that, therefore, the court erred in suppressing it.
“ The orders of the General and Special Terms should be reversed and the motion denied, with costs.”
Edward S. Sapallo and Howard Townsend for appellant.
Ghauneey S. Truax for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam mem.]
Per Curiam mem.
for reversal of orders of General and Special Terms and for denial of motion.
All concur.
Ordered accordingly.