Case ID: ad_139/html/0898-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "McLaughlin, J. (dissenting):", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Arthur N. Tolson, Appellant, v. Frederick Schmidt, .Respondent.
   .Appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate an order for plaintiff’s examination before-trial.- '

Order affirmed, with ten ' dollars • costs and disbursements. No opinion.Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin (dissenting), -Laughlin, Scott and Dowling, JJ, . . ' .

McLaughlin, J. (dissenting):

I dissent, upon the ground that there is nothing - in'the moving papers to show that the examination of the plaintiff is necessary ^ or material for the establishment of the defendant’s defense..