Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

78 N.Y. 220

Seeley v. . Clark

New York Court of Appeals

Decided September 17, 1879

New York Court of Appeals · decided 1879-09-17

Mead before trial, on the ground that he was a “party in interest.” Under the old chancery practice, a bill for discovery lay not only against parties to the record in the common law action, but also parties hi interest. (Plummer v. May, 1 Yes., 426; Glyn v. Soares, 1 Y. & C., 644; Post v. Boardman, 10 Paige, 580; Day v. Dralce, 3 Sim., 64; Story’s Eq.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The words ‘party to an action’ * * * include parties to the record and no one else. Such is their legal and ordinary meaning. Mead, the person whose examination was directed, it is conceded is not one of those parties. That he is a party in interest is not sufficient. He is still a person not a party.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Lane v. Bochlowitz

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1879-09-17

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently March 1952

11 state decisions

50187918801890190019101920193019401950decided

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 →

Daxforth, J.

¶1 The words “ party to an action,” in section 870 of the New Code, include parties to the record, and no one else. Such is their legal and ordinary meaning. Mead, the person whose examination was directed, it is conceded, is not one of those parties. That he is a party in interest is not sufficient; he is still “ a person not a party,” and his examination in certain cases is provided for by sec *222 tion 871. It. is not claimed that a case is made out under that section. To bring him within section 870, the court must supply words, viz., “party in interest,” which an examination of title 12, chapter 6 of the Old Code, and a comparison of its provisions, with those of the New (title 3, chap. 9), show, that the Legislature intentionally omitted. This we have no authority to do.

¶2 The order for his examination was therefore properly vacated,' and the order of the General Term should be affirmed, with costs.

¶3 All concur, except Andrews, J., absent.

¶4 Order affirmed.

/78/ny/220 · .json · Public domain