Walter Grant v. United States
| Decision Date | 20 January 1913 |
| Docket Number | No. 831,831 |
| Parties | WALTER B. GRANT and E. E. Burlingame, Appts. and Plffs. in Err., v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. William A. Keener and Dallas Flannagan for appellants and plaintiffs in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 75 intentionally omitted] Solicitor General Bullitt and Mr. Loring C. Christie for the United states.
Walter B. Grant and E. E. Burlingame seek, both by appeal and by writ of error, a review of a judgment of the district court by which Grant was adjudged to be guilty of contempt.
Burlingame was indicate by a Federal grand jury in the southern district of New York on August 30, 1911, and again on March 15, 1912, the latter indictment being found against him in connection with the Ellsworth Company, a corporation, J. D. Smith, and others. Walter B. Grant was one of Burlingame's attorneys. On March 13, 1912, a subpoena duces tecum was served upon Grant, directing him to appear before the grand jury to testify in regard to an alleged violation of the statutes of the United States by J. D. Smith, and to produce certain books and papers of the Ellsworth Company for the years 1907, 1908, 1909. In response to the subpoena, Grant appeared before the grand jury but did not produce the documents demanded. On being asked whether he had received from Burlingame any box of books or papers, he declined to answer further than to say that he had received nothing from Burlingame save in his capacity as attorney for the purpose of professional consultation and of preparing for the defense of his client. He said that he had not opened any box received from Burlingame, and he refused to open any such box in order to ascertain whether or not it contained the books or papers called for, upon the ground that to do so for the purpose of disclosing the result of his examination would violate his duty and his client's privilege.
The grand jury thereupon presented Grant for contempt. Burlingame appeared in court, set up that the books and papers required to be produced were his individual property, and that to produce them or to disclose their contents or whereabouts would tend to incriminate him. The court appointed a referee to take evidence as to the rights and privileges claimed by Grant, and as to the ownership of the books and papers, together with such other evidence as might be relevant to the questions raised, and to make report to the court, with his conclusions. Much testimony was taken before the referee, who submitted an elaborate report upon the facts and the law, embracing the following conclusions: That Burlingame had at all times been the sole stockholder of the Ellsworth Company which, on December 31, 1909, had ceased to do business; that the legal title to the books and papers was in the corporation, and not in Burlingame; that if the title had passed to Burlingame prior to the service of the subpoena, nevertheless they would not be privileged, for the reason that they were corporate in character that in August or September, 1911, Burlingame had delivered two packages and a box to Grant, which the latter had in his possession; that the packages and box were delivered to Grant for safekeeping in his office, and were not delivered to him in his professional capacity as attorney, or for the purpose of consultation with him in such capacity; that their contents were not privileged, and that Grant should have searched therein for the books and papers, should have produced them if found, and should have answered the questions put to him before the grand jury; and, finally, that by reason of his refusals he was in contempt.
Exceptions were filed to the report, which was confirmed by the court save as to the finding that the legal title to the books and papers was in the corporation. Grant was thereupon adjudged to be in contempt for failing to examine the contents of the box and packages for the purpose of ascertaining whether they contained the papers specified in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Miskinis, Docket No. 67943
...... privilege against self-incrimination protected by the Michigan and United States Constitutions, Const.1963, art. 1, Sec. 17 and U.S. Const., Am. V. ...United States, supra; United States v. White, supra; Grant v. United States, 227 U.S. 74, 33 S.Ct. 190, 57 L.Ed. 423 (1913); Wilson ......
-
Andresen v. Maryland
...records. Bellis v. United States, 417 U.S. 85, 88-89, 94 S.Ct. 2179, 2182-83, 40 L.Ed.2d 678 (1974); Grant v. United States, 227 U.S. 74, 33 S.Ct. 190, 57 L.Ed. 423 (1913); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 70, 26 S.Ct. 370, 377, 50 L.Ed. 652 (1906). It appears, however, that the records seized ......
-
United States v. Willis
...have been made in Bellis, was implicitly, but necessarily, rejected by the Court in that case. Indeed, in Grant v. United States, 227 U.S. 74, 33 S.Ct. 190, 57 L.Ed. 423 (1913), the Court held that the Fifth Amendment did not afford the corporation's sole shareholder protection against prod......
-
Estate of Baehr
...31 S.Ct. 538, 55 L.Ed. 771 (1911); Wheeler v. United States, 226 U.S. 478, 33 S.Ct. 158, 57 L.Ed. 309 (1913); Grant v. United States, 227 U.S. 74, 33 S.Ct. 190, 57 L.Ed. 423 (1913); United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694, 64 S.Ct. 1248, 88 L.Ed. 1542 (1944); United States v. Fleischman, 339 U......
-
The Civil Litigator
...(1923). 7. Hair Industry, Ltd. v. United States, 340 F.2d 510 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 950 (1965). 8. Grant v. United States, 227 U.S. 74 (1913). 9. Supra, note 5; Wilson, supra, note 6. 10. Curcio v. United States, 354 U.S. 118 (1957); United States v. Pollack, 201 F. Supp. 542 (......