Charles C. Beck, Respondent, v. Minnie Bohm and August Knatz, Appellants, Impleaded with Others

Charles C. Beck, Respondent, v. Minnie Bohm and August Knatz, Appellants, Impleaded with Others. Proper practice in requiring a ’deed to be produced in order that it may be photographed. The practice of requiring a defendant to produce for inspection a deed at a photographer’s studio so that it may be photographed will not be sanctioned. The better practice is to direct that the deed be placed in the custody of the county clerk, with permission to the defendant to inspect it, and, if he desires, to have it photographed. Appeal by the defendants, Minnie Bohm and another, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 4th day of April, 1904, granting a motion for discovery. James C. de La Mare, for the appellant Bohm.. A. L. Gutman, for the appellant Knatz. Willoughby B. Dobbs, for the respondent. [MAJORITY — Per Curiam:] Per Curiam: We do not think that we should sanction the practice of requiring a defendant to produce for inspection a deed at a photographer’s studio so that it might be photographed. We think the better practice is to direct that the deed should be placed in the custody of the county clerk with permission to the plaintiff to inspect it and, if he desires, to have it photographed. . The order accordingly should be so modified, without costs. Present—O’Brien, Ingraham, McLaughlin,. Hatch and Laughlin, JJ. Order modified, without costs.