Hyperlawhypertext legal database Wilson v. Collins 109 N.Y.S. 662

← Cases

Wilson v. Collins

109 N.Y.S. 662 Court N.Y. Sup. Ct. English

Delivered by MILLS, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 662
(57 Misc. Rep. 365.)
WILSON v. COLLINS.
(Supreme Court, Special Term, Westchester County.
January, 1908.)

Headnote

Discovery—“Document ob Other Paper.”
A motion for inspection of a picture, the property involved in the action, will be denied; it not being a “document or other paper” within the meaning of Code Civ. Proc. § 803, authorizing inspection.
[Ed. Note.—Eor other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 3, pp. 2153, 2154.]
Action by Francis Wilson against Samuel Collins. Motion for inspection of property involved in action denied.
See 119 App. Div. 88 , 103 N. Y. Supp. 1038 ; 120 App. Div. 892 , 105 N. Y. Supp. 1150 .
William D. Leonard, for the motion.
Francis S. Turner and R. Floyd Clarke, opposed.

The question whether the picture, as bearing the alleged purported signature of the artist, can be regarded as a “document or other paper” within the meaning of section 803 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was not involved upon the prior motion, because the moving papers then failed to show that the picture bore such purported signature. Upon this renewal of the motion such fact appears, and the question whether or not the picture thereby comes within the above terms of said section has been thoroughly discussed both upon the oral argument and in the briefs. After carefully considering the matter, I am in doubt whether, with such signature, the picture can be regarded as coming within such terms. The painting itself is clearly the principal thing, and the purported signature but an incident. Therefore I am by no means clear that the court ha? the power to order its.inspection; and I conclude that the motion must be denied for want of power.

Motion denied.

Cases cited