1 Wend. 65
Decided August 15, 1828
New York Supreme Court · decided 1828-08-15
It was objected to the granting of the rule, that though the witness is at present absent from the state, he does not reside out of the state ; that his residence is in the county of Ulster, where his family now are, though he is, himself, in Pennsylvania, engaged as a contractor in constructing one of the canals in that state.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1828-08-15
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently April 1866
4 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
¶1By the Court,
¶2The motion must be granted. Though the domicil of the witness be in this state, he resides out of the state, within the meaning of the statute, which was intended to facilitate the obtaining the testimony of witnesses who were beyond the reach of the process of our courts, and whose personal attendance at the trial could not be enforced.