Cornell v. Eaton
| Decision Date | 16 November 1955 |
| Citation | 146 N.Y.S.2d 449,286 A.D. 1124 |
| Parties | William H. CORNELL and Lessie T. Goodemote, Appellants, v. William EATON, Maude Eaton, Samuel McConkey, Gladys McConkey, Bessie Borwhat, George I. McKnight, Ellen S. McKnight, Anthony H. Schaub, Hanna M. Schaub, George Williams, Jennie Williams, Arthur Williams, Ora Williams, Edmund Mazur, Virginia Mazur, Leo Budney, Ethel Budney, Leslie Neal and Ruth Neal, Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Chandler S. Knight, Amsterdam, for appellants.
T. Cuthell Calderwood, Johnstown, for respondents.
Before FOSTER, P. J., and BERGAN, COON, HALPERN and ZELLER, JJ.
Appeal by plaintiffs from an order of the Supreme Court entered in the Fulton County Clerk's office on March 2, 1955, which granted a motion for an examination of the plaintiff, William H. Cornell, before trial. The action is in equity, involving a dispute over rights of way. Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that defendant William Eaton, forged certain language in a deed. We cannot agree that, under the voluminous pleadings herein, the forgery is the only issue. The matters upon which the examination was allowed are, or at least could become, material and necessary. In an equity action no harm can come from a broad examination of a party, and the trial will be materially shortened to the extent that the facts are developed beforehand. Under the circumstances presented in this case it was within the discretion of the Court at Special Term to grant the order appealed from.
Order unanimously affirmed, with Ten Dollars costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allen v. Crowell-Collier Pub. Co., CROWELL--COLLIER
...of testimony.' (Southbridge Finishing Co. v. Golding, 2 A.D.2d 430, 434, 156 N.Y.S.2d 542, 546; see, also, Cornell v. Eaton, 286 App.Div. 1124, 146 N.Y.S.2d 449; Dorros, Inc. v. Dorros Bros., 274 App.Div. 11, 13--14, 80 N.Y.S.2d 25, 28.) And, since the enactment of CPLR 3101, the courts hav......
-
City of Binghamton v. Arlington Hotel, Inc.
...the preservation of testimony.' (Southbridge Finishing Co. v. Golding, 2 A.D.2d 430, 434, 156 N.Y.S.2d 542; see, also Cornell v. Eaton, 286 App.Div. 1124, 146 N.Y.S.2d 449; Dorros, Inc. v. Dorros Bros., 274 App.Div. 11, 13--14, 80 N.Y.S.2d 25.) And, since the enactment of CPLR 3101, the cou......
-
Carney v. Liebmann Breweries, Inc.
...is an action in equity, and hence comes within subdivision 4 of Rule XI of New York County Supreme Court Rules. Cf. Cornell v. Eaton, 286 App.Div. 1124, 146 N.Y.S.2d 449, 450, wherein the court stated 'In an equity action no harm can come from a broad examination of a party, and the trial w......
- Testa, Application of