Strong v. Randall

In the Matter of the Application of William E. Strong Et Al., Respondents, to Compel Frank E. Randall, Appellant, to Answer Certain Questions. the Western Gas and Fuel Company, Appellant

Strong v. Randall, 69 N.E. 721 (N.Y. 1904)

Court: New York Court of Appeals · State Highest Courts
Decided: February 16, 1904
Judges: Riami
Citations: 69 N.E. 721177 N.Y. 4001904 N.Y. LEXIS 948

Cited by 12

Headnotes

Appeal — Final Order in Contempt Proceedings undjt.r Section 915, Code op Civil Procedure. Proceedings taken under section 915 of the Code of Civil Procedure to punish a witness for contempt in failing to give testimony for use in another state constitute a special proceeding; and the final order therein, from which an appeal will lie to the Court of Appeals as a matter of right, is that which punishes or refuses to punish the witness; no appeal will lie from an order which merely directs the witness to answer specified questions and is, therefore, interlocutory in its character, and an appeal therefrom must he dismissed.

Summary

Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, made January 5, 1904, which reversed an order of Special Term denying a motion to compel Frank E. Randall to answer certain questions, and granted such motion. The motion was made upon the ground that the order was not appealable to the Court of Appeals.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Riami

Per Gv/riami.

While we are of opinion that proceedings taken under section 915 of the Code of Civil Procedure to punish a witness for contempt in failing to give testimony for use in actions or suits in other states constitute a special proceeding within the definition of the Code, we are also of opinion that the order from which the present appeal is taken, which merely directs the witness to answer specified questions, is interlocutory in its character. The final order in the proceeding will be that which either punishes or refuses to punish the witness for contempt, should he persist in his refusal to *401 testify, and it is such an order only that is appealable to this court, as a matter of right.

The appeal should he dismissed, with costs, and ten dollars costs of motion.

Parker, Oh. J., Gray, O’Brien, Haight, Martin, Vann and Cullen, JJ., concur.

Appeal dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 12 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Lochren143 F. 211 (8th Cir. 1906)
In re Williams153 Misc. 682 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1934)
Perry v. Rubber Tire Wheel Co.138 F. 836 (1905)
In re Pennsylvania R. Co.111 A.2d 509 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1955)
In re Appeal of Pennsylvania Railroad111 A.2d 509 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1955)
State ex rel. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Bland88 S.W. 28 (Mo. 1905)

Most recent

Long Island Trust Co. v. Rosenberg82 A.D.2d 591 (1981)
In re Pennsylvania R. Co.111 A.2d 509 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1955)
In re Appeal of Pennsylvania Railroad111 A.2d 509 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1955)
In re Williams153 Misc. 682 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1934)
In re Gleichman123 Misc. 198 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1924)
Guenther v. Ridgway Co.159 A.D. 74 (1913)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list