New York Supreme Court, 1893

Travers v. Satterlee

Travers v. Satterlee
New York Supreme Court · Decided February 17, 1893 · Brunt
22 N.Y.S. 118; 51 N.Y. St. Rep. 458 (New York Supplement)

Counsel

George H. Kracht, (Robert E. Deyo, of counsel,) for appellant., Yellott D. Dechert, for respondent.

Travers v. Satterlee

Opinion of the Court

VAN BRUNT, P. J.

We see no reason for interfering with the order made by the court below. It does not appear that any harm can come of the production of the letter in question. If it is material to any of the issues involved in the suit, then the plaintiff is clearly entitled to an inspection; if it is immaterial, then no harm is done by allowing an inspection thereof. We think therefore, that the order appealed from should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.

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