Only one ground of error need be referred to, and that relates to the failure to produce books, papers, and vouchers. In the first place, there was' not a proper demand for their production, and, in the second place, their nonproduction was sufficiently excused. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.
92 N.Y.S. 771
NARINSKY v. FIDELITY SURETY CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
March 21, 1905.)
Insueance—Action on Policy—Peodtjction of Books—Demand.
Failure of plaintiff, in an action on a fire policy on a stock of goods, to produce books and vouchers, may not be complained of, there having been no proper demand for their production.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 28, Cent. Dig. Insurance, §§ 1348, 1385.]
Appeal from City Court of New York, Special Term.
Action _ by Sarah Narinsky against the Eidelity Surety Company, as attorney in fact, and representing John W. Newberry and others, underwriters of the Eidelity Insurance Association, on a fire policy on a stock of goods. Erom a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before SCOTT, O’GORMAN, and BLANCHARD, JJ.
W. E. Kisselburgh, for appellant.
Goldfogle, Cohn & Lind, for respondent.
Narinsky v. Fidelity Surety Co.
92 N.Y.S. 771
Case Details
92 N.Y.S. 771
References
Nothing yet... Still searching!
Nothing yet... Still searching!