¶1*643Motion on the part of the plaintiff for a commission, to England to examine, without naming them, such witnesses as might be produced before the commissioners.. It appeared that the case had been at issue for some months, and had several times been noticed for trial. Held, that the general rule, that the witnesses must be named in the commission, was never departed from, except under very special circumstances, and never when by reasonable diligence the names might have been ascertained. Here the laches in making the motion was not excused in the affidavit on which it was founded. The motion was therefore denied, with costs.
3 Duer 642
Wright v. Jessup
The Superior Court of New York City
Decided March 25, 1854
The Superior Court of New York City · decided 1854-03-25
<p>The rule, that witnesses to be examined under a commission must be named in it, is never departed from, except under very special circumstances, and never when by reasonable diligence the names might have been ascertained.</p>
Decided 1854-03-25