SPRING v. MONCRIEFF


285 A.D. 1127 (1955)

Harry B. Spring, Respondent, v. Howard F. Moncrieff, Defendant, and Swan-Finch Oil Corporation, Appellant

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.

May 10, 1955.


In the exercise of discretion the broad and all-encompassing subpœna duces tecum should at this time be vacated (Matter of Sun-Ray Cloak Co., 256 App. Div. 620; Carlisle v. Bennett, 268 N.Y. 212, 217). Upon the hearing of the motion the proper disposition thereof may require the issuance of another subpœna duces tecum calling for the production of all or some of the many papers demanded pursuant to the subpœna under attack. Orderly and feasible...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases