Case ID: nys_42/html/1130-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "FITZSIMONS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PEETSCH v. QUINN. In re CURRAN.
    (City Court of New York, General Term.
    December 12, 1896.)
    Action by Henry C. L. Peetsch against William H. Quinn. For former report see 33 N. Y. Supp. 87. Johnson & Johnson, for appellant. M. H. Curran, for respondent.
   FITZSIMONS, J.

We think that the proceeding herein against Curran was a special proceeding, and, as costs were therein awarded Curran, he had the right to examine the plaintiff under the order granted herein. Plaintiff having failed to pay such costs, the remedy so taken, in our judgment, was not objectionable merely because it was retroactive. The order must be affirmed, with costs.