In re Donald

• Decision Date: 14 June 1915
• Docket Number: No. 80.,80.
• Citation: 87 N.J.L. 691,94 A. 580
• Parties: In re DONALD et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

94 A. 580

87 N.J.L. 691

In re DONALD et al.

No. 80.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

June 14, 1915.

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Application by Donald and Healy for process of subpcena. From an order denying a motion to quash an order for a subpoena, certain parties appeal. Appeal dismissed.

Bleakly & Stockwell, of Camden, for appellants. Lewis Starr, of Camden, for appellee.

PER CURIAM. On application under the statute Mr. Justice Garrison made an order for a subpcena duces tecum in an action pending in Oregon. Subsequently, by consent of counsel, a motion to quash this order was made before him, sitting as the Supreme Court. He denied the motion, and this appeal was taken. The procedure followed was that adopted in Re Edison, 68 N. J. Law, 494, 53 Atl. 696. Obviously this appeal is an attempt to review) the action of the Supreme Court with reference to its own process. Such action is not appealable. Coryell v. Holcombe, 9 N. J. Eq. 650; Doland's Case, 69 N. J. Eq. 802, 64 Atl. 1091. Whether or not the case could be brought to this court in case the Supreme Court should award a certiorari to review the original order as one made by the justice only as a person designated by the statute, as in the case of the appointment of commissioners to condemn land, is a question we are not now called upon to decide.

The appeal is dismissed, with costs.