WILSON v. RAILWAY COMPANY, S.C., Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Report a problem

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

Messrs. B.L. Abney and E.M. Thomson, for appellant, submit their argument in Easler v. this defendant, post. Messrs. G.T. Graham and P.H. Nelson, contra, cite: Is the order now appealable: 35 S.E.R., 797; 32 S.E.R., 417; 30 S.E.R., 614. The Court has no power to subject a party to such examination: 11 Sup. Ct. R., 1001; 113 U.S. 724; 4 How., 242; 24 Pa. St., 314; 29 Hun., 154; 50 N Y Sup. Ct., 412; 53 Mo., 509; 102 Ill., 272; 10 F.R., 278; 40 A.R., 1114; 32 N.E., 389; 33 N.E., 951; 28 N.E., 360. In States where statutes permit such orders they are only granted along with an order requiring examination of party orally: 27 N.Y.S., 966; 34 N.Y.S., 572. There is no statute here permitting such examination, but the contrary: Code, 390.

Are you a practicing lawyer?

Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.

Upload pleading to use the new AI search

Click here to upload

Cites

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

Messrs. B.L. Abney and E.M. Thomson, for appellant, submit their argument in Easler v. this defendant, post. Messrs. G.T. Graham and P.H. Nelson, contra, cite: Is the order now appealable: 35 S.E.R., 797; 32 S.E.R., 417; 30 S.E.R., 614. The Court has no power to subject a party to such examination: 11 Sup. Ct. R., 1001; 113 U.S. 724; 4 How., 242; 24 Pa. St., 314; 29 Hun., 154; 50 N Y Sup. Ct., 412; 53 Mo., 509; 102 Ill., 272; 10 F.R., 278; 40 A.R., 1114; 32 N.E., 389; 33 N.E., 951; 28 N.E., 360. In States where statutes permit such orders they are only granted along with an order requiring examination of party orally: 27 N.Y.S., 966; 34 N.Y.S., 572. There is no statute here permitting such examination, but the contrary: Code, 390.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

WILSON v. SOUTHERN RY. CO.

April 1, 1901. The opinion of the Court was delivered by

MR. JUSTICE GARY.

The appeal herein was heard in connection with that in the case of R.T. Easler, an infant, c., plaintiff, against Southern Railway Company, defendant, post, as the facts were similar and the same question was presented by the exceptions; the principles announced in that case, in which the opinion has just been filed, are conclusive of this appeal.

The order of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE JONES dissents.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

WILSON v. RAILWAY COMPANY

WILSON v. SOUTHERN RY. CO.

Comments