Case Name: CARR v. GENERAL INCANDESCENT ARC LIGHT CO.
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1902-01
Citations: 77 N.Y.S. 464
Docket Number: 
Parties: CARR v. GENERAL INCANDESCENT ARC LIGHT CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 77
Pages: 464–464

Head Matter:
(37 Misc. Rep. 837.)
CARR v. GENERAL INCANDESCENT ARC LIGHT CO.
(City Court of New York, General Term.
January, 1902.)
Appeal—Dismissal—Motion—Notice.
1. A motion to dismiss an appeal will not be'entertained where no notice of the motion was given, and it does not appear that appellant has done anything to waive the notice.
7, 1. See Appeal and Error, vol. 3, Cent. Dig. § 3155.
Appeal from special term.
Action by Joseph Carr against the General Incandescent Arc Light Company. From an order vacating an order for an examination of plaintiff before trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before HASCALL and O’DWYER, JJ.
Eaton & Lewis (Eugene H. Lewis and Franklin H. Mills, of counsel), for appellant.
Edward A. Scott, for respondent.

Opinion:
HASCALL, J.
We are inclined to hold with the appellant that the evidence sought on the examination must be offered by it. Howard v. Daly, 6i N. Y. 362, 19 Am. Rep. 285; also (opinion by Schuchman, J.) Fancher v. Pinon (City Ct. N. Y.) 41 N. Y. Supp. 1114. But so far as we can learn by the papers submitted, the order appealed from was vacated because of irregularity in requiring the examination to take place in a county other than that of plaintiff's residence or place of business, and not because of loches. Moreover, the amended answer is dated November 2, 1901, and the order to show cause is dated the 19th of that month; so the theory is plausible that the order complained against was not based upon the ground of respondent's neglect below, notwithstanding the issue, for the purpose 'Of fixing the position of the cause upon the general trial calendar, was to remain of date when first due. The allegations of the affidavits upon which the order for examination was granted bring it clearly within the lines of the Code provision, and entitle the defendant to the relief to obtain which its motion was made. Herbage v. City of Utica, 109 N. Y. 81, 16 N. E. 62; Tanenbaum v. Hilborn, 44 App. Div. 89, 60 N. Y. Supp, 406. But the affidavit of Mr. Trust makes it clear that the court did not obtain jurisdiction to enforce the order. Code, § 886. There appears to be no good ground for entertaining the motion to dismiss the appeal made before the argument of the cause, since no notice of motion was given, nor has appellant apparently done anything to waive its right to such notice. Such motion will therefore be denied.
The order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs and disbursements, with leave to apply to special term to have fixed a day for plaintiff's examination under order of November 19, 1901.
Order affirmed, with costs, with leave to apply to special term to have fixed a day for plaintiff's examination under order of November 19, 1901.
O'DWYER, J., concurs.