Case ID: f_184/html/0969-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "WARD, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

KLINE BROS. & CO. v. LIVERPOOL & LONDON & GLOBE INS. CO.
    (Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
    January 14, 1911.)
    Depositions (§ 56)— De Bene Esse — Notice—Vacation—Extension—Jurisdiction.
    Since Rev. St. § 863 (17. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 661), authorizes the taking of depositions' do bene esse without any application to or assistance from the court, the court has no jurisdiction to vacate or extend a notice; the party taking the deposition taking the risk of having it suppressed if the notice does not comply with the statute.
    [Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Depositions, Dec. Dig. § 56.]
    Action by Kline Bros. & Co. against the Liverpool & London & Globe Insurance Company, with, which were heard four other cases. Application to vacate or extend a notice to take depositions de bene esse.
    Denied.
    Fried & Czaki, for plaintiff.
    Ivins, Mason, Wolff & Iloguet, for defendant.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § ntoibeb in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep'r Indexes
    
   WARD, Circuit Judge.

The party having the right to take depositions de bene esse under section 863 of the Revised Statutes (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 661) without any application to or assistance from the court, I doubt the power of the court to vacate or extend the notice. The party who gives the notice takes the risk of the deposition being suppressed if it does not comply with the requirements of the statute. It would greatly impair the efficiency of the statute, which is aimed at emergencies, if courts were to intervene. If the plaintiff thinks the notice is bad, his course is to treat it as a nullity, and move to suppress the depositions, if taken.

The motion to vacate the notice to take depositions is denied.