History
  • No items yet
midpage
McGready v. Haight
48 N.Y.S. 39
N.Y. App. Div.
1897
Check Treatment
PER CURIAM.

This motion was properly denied. The case, in all its substantial aspects, falls within the decision in Talbot v. Doran & Wright Co. (Com. Pl.) 9 N. Y. Supp. 478. This case is also supported by other authorities. Miller v. Kent, 59 How. Prac. 321; Judah v. Lane, 14 Daly, 308. These authorities are conclusive of 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 (Sup.) 16 N. Y. Supp. 689.

The order in each case should be affirmed, with $10 costs in one case, and disbursements in both.

Case Details

Case Name: McGready v. Haight
Court Name: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Date Published: Nov 30, 1897
Citation: 48 N.Y.S. 39
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.