Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1904

Beck v. Bohm

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided July 1, 1904

95 A.D. 273; 88 N.Y.S. 584

Counsel

James C. de La Mare, for the appellant Bohm.., A. L. Gutman, for the appellant Knatz., Willoughby B. Dobbs, for the respondent.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

We do not think that we should sanction the practice of requiring a defendant to produce for inspection a deed at a photographer’s studio so that it might be photographed. We think the better practice is to direct that the deed should be placed in the custody of *274the county clerk with permission to the plaintiff to inspect it and, if he desires, to have it photographed. .

The order accordingly should be so modified, without costs.

Present—O’Brien, Ingraham, McLaughlin,. Hatch and Laughlin, JJ.

Order modified, without costs.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.