History
  • No items yet
midpage
In re Hirshfield
215 A.D. 81
| N.Y. App. Div. | 1925
|
Check Treatment
Per Curiam.

We consider that the witnesses subpoenaed in these proceedings were not properly required to attend before the commissioner, because the .matters pending before him concerning which an inquiry was projected were not subjects having to do with the accounts and methods of the department of finance, and that the warrants of attachment directing the sheriff to produce them should have been vacated, under the authority of Matter of Hirshfield v. Craig (239 N. Y. 98).

The orders should, therefore, be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motions granted.

• Present — Clarke, P. J., Dowling, Merrell, McAvoy and Burr, JJ.

In each case: Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted.

Case Details

Case Name: In re Hirshfield
Court Name: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Date Published: Dec 18, 1925
Citation: 215 A.D. 81
Court Abbreviation: N.Y. App. Div.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.