Case ID: misc_57/html/0365-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mills, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Francis Wilson, Plaintiff, v. Samuel Collins, Defendant.
    (Supreme Court, Westchester Special Term,
    January, 1908.)
    Discovery and inspection — Inspection of hooks, papers and premises — Right to remedy — When allowed in general — What may he inspected.
    Upon renewal of the motion made in the previoué case, held, that though the picture bore the purported signature of the artist it could not be regarded as a “ document or other paper ” within the meaning of section 803 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and a motion for its inspection must be denied for w^nt of power.
    Renewal of motion. The opinion states the case.
    William D. Leonard, for plaintiff and motion.
    Francis S. Turner and B. Floyd Clarke, for defendant opposed.
   Mills, J.

The question whether the picture, as bearing the alleged purported signature of the artist, can be regarded as a document or other paper ” within the meaning of section 803 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was not involved 1 upon the prior motion, because the moving papers then failed to show that the picture bore such purported signature. Upon this renewal of the motion such fact- appears, and the question whether or not the picture thereby comes within the above terms of said section has been thoroughly discussed both upon the oral argument and in the briefs. After carefully considering the matter, I am in doubt whether, with such signature, the picture can be regarded as coming within such terms. The painting itself is clearly the principal thing, and the purported signature but an incident. Therefore I am by no means clear that the court has the power to order its inspection; and I conclude that the motion must be denied for want of power.

Motion denied.