TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Memphis Trotting Ass'n v. Smathers

Memphis Trotting Association v. Elmer E. Smathers

Memphis Trotting Ass'n v. Smathers, 114 A.D. 376 (1906)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
July 12, 1906
Citations
114 A.D. 37699 N.Y.S. 10571906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2108
Headnotes
Discovery—moving affidavit insufficient. A defendant moving to obtain the inspectipn of an affidavit which appears to have been destroyed and which was the ground of the allegations of the complaint made on information, must show in his moving papers that a copy is in existence and that he asks for an inspection of such copy.
Summary
Appeal by the. defendant, Elmer E. Smathers, from an order of the Siqireme Court, made at the New York Special Term, and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 5th day of June, 1906. Action to recover a gold cup, alleged to have been obtained by defendant through a conspiracy to drug “ Lou Dillon ” so that the defendant’s horse, “Major Delmar,” would win in a certain trotting race. The order from which this appeal is taken denied a petition of the defendant that he he permitted to take a copy of the affidavit of one Sanders relating to said conspiracy, which the verification of the complaint states is a ground of the information of deponent as to matters stated on information and belief. The petition further states that the affidavit in question is in the control of plaintiff’s attorney.

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

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam :

It would appear that the original affidavit has been destroyed, and solely because of the insufficiency of the papers in showing that a copy is still in existence, and the fact that no motion was made for the inspection of such copy, we think that the proper disposition will be to affirm the order, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, but with -leave to move for the inspection of the copy if so advised. • .

Present — O’Brien, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Houghton, JJ.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, with leave to move for inspection of copy affidavit, if so advised. Settle order on notice.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list