Ballinger v. Elliott
| Decision Date | 31 January 1875 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | YANCY BALLINGER v. STEPHEN ELLIOTT. |
A citizen of another State, voluntarily attending one of our Superior Courts as a witness, is privileged from arrest in civil cases although no subpœna has been served on him.
MOTION to vacate an order of arrest, heard by his Honor, Judge Tourgee, at Chambers in GUILFORD county, on the 25th day of January, 1875.
The defendant lived in Indiana, and had come to Greensboro', at the request of counsel to give evidence in a certain action then pending in the Superior Court of Guilford, wherein??
Hittle was plaintiff, and Ballinger, the plaintiff in this action, was defendant. He, the defendant Elliott, was under no subpœna, summons or other judicial process requiring his attendance, nor was any ever issued.
The plaintiff had commenced a civil action against the defendant, and obtained an order of arrest, under which he was held to bail four days before the commencement of the Fall Term of the Court, for his appearance, &c., at the March Term ensuing.
The defendant soon after his arrest, moved before the Clerk of the Court to vacate the order, upon the ground that he was a witness in attendance upon the Fall Term of the Court, in the action above stated, and was therefore protected under the law from the service of civil process. The Clerk refused his motion to vacate the order, and the defendant appealed to his Honor.
On the hearing at Chambers, his Honor reversed the Clerk's order, and the plaintiff appealed.
Scott & Caldwell, Scales & Scales, Mendenhall & Staples, and Shipp & Bailey, for appellant .
J. T. Morehead, Jr., and Dillard & Gilmer, contra .
The defendant was arrested upon an order made by the Clerk of the Superior Court of Guilford county, in an action brought against him by the plaintiff for deceit, &c. The defendant resides in Indiana, and at the time of his arrest, which was a few days before a term of the Superior Court of said county, he had come to said county at the request of one Hittle, who was a plaintiff in an action pending in that Court against the present plaintiff (Ballinger,) as a witness for Hittle in that action. His attendance was voluntary, and he was not served with a subpœna after his arrival in Guilford county.
The authorities cited for the defendant establish that he was privileged from arrest, notwithstanding he was attending voluntarily and not under a subpœna. There is no way to compel the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Superior Court of King County
... ... Beach, 2 Johns. (N ... Y.) 294; Sanford v. Chase, 3 Cow. (N. Y.) 381; ... Henegar v. Spangler, 29 Ga. 217; Ballinger v ... Elliott, 72 N.C. 596; Arding v. Flower, 8 Term ... 534; Newton v. Askew, 6 Hare, 319; Tribune ... Ass'n v. Sleeman, ... ...
-
Christian v. Williams
... ... In ... North Carolina, it is held that a non-resident witness is ... privileged from arrest on civil process. Ballinger v ... Elliott , 72 N.C. 596 ... In the ... federal courts the rule adopted in Pennsylvania seems to be ... followed, though ... ...
-
Powers v. Arkadelphia Lumber Co.
...Rich. Law, (S. C.) 196; 37 Minn. 118; 1 Bin. (Pa.) 77; 2 Yeates (Pa.) 222; 45 N.J.L. 119; 16 Gray (Mass.), 86; 122 Mass. 428; 29 Ga. 217; 72 N.C. 596. It makes no whether the party claiming the privilege has come into the state from another state, or has simply come from one county into ano......
-
Brown v. Taylor
...process while in attendance on the courts of the forum. The general principle is fully recognized (Cooper v. Wyman, supra; Ballinger v. Elliott, 72 N.C. 596; Barber v. Knowles. 77 Ohio St. 81, 82 N.E. 1065, L. R. A. [ N. S.] 663, 11 Ann. Cas. 1144; Martin v. Bacon, 76 Ark. 158, 88 S.W. 863,......