Majority
p. 584BECK v. BOHM et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. June 10, 1904.) Argued before HATCH, McLAUGHLIN, O’BRIEN, INGRAHAM, and LAUGHLIN, JJ. ’
Headnote
1. Discoveby—Inspection of Deed—Photogbaph.On an application for discovery of a deed defendant should not be required to produce the same for inspection at a photographer’s studio, in order that it might be photographed, but should be ordered to place it in the custody of the county clerk, with permission to the plaintiff to inspect and photograph it
Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
Action by Charles C. Beck against Minnie Bohm and others. From an order granting plaintiff’s motion for a discovery, defendants appeal. Modified.
A. L. Gutman, for appellant Knatz.
James C. De La Mare, for appellant Minnie Bohm.
Willoughby B. Dobbs, for respondent.
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
p. 585
think the better practice is to direct that the deed should be placed in custody of the 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.