Roschynialski v. Hale

Decision Date31 January 1913
Docket Number19.
Citation201 F. 1017
PartiesROSCHYNIALSKI v. HALE.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Nebraska

A Norman, of Ord, Neb., R. H. Mathew, of Loup City, Neb., and Claude A. Davis, of Ord, Neb., for plaintiff.

J. S Pedler and W. A. Prince, of Grand Island, Neb., for defendant.

THOMAS C. MUNGER, District Judge.

The defendant was served with a summons issued in an action begun in the state court. He removed the action to this court, and has presented a plea to the jurisdiction. The petition was filed in the state court in March, 1912, and the summons was issued and served on July 25, 1912, while the defendant was in the county where the action was begun. The defendant, at the date of filing the petition and ever since, has been a resident of another state. At the date of the issuance of the summons in this case there was pending in the same county an action in replevin, wherein the defendant in this action was plaintiff. That action was about to be tried. The defendant had come from another state, bringing the body of a deceased relative for interment in another county in this state, and as soon as that duty was performed he was induced to go to the county where this action was brought in pursuance of an agreement between the attorneys for the parties in the replevin action that his deposition should be taken there, before a notary public, as a witness on his own behalf in the replevin action. His deposition was so taken and the summons in this action was served on defendant within a few minutes of the time he concluded his testimony, and before he had a reasonable time to depart for his home. Under the Civil Code of Nebraska, the defendant was not exempt from service of summons, on the ground that he was a nonresident of the state or of the county, as he was in the county when the summons was issued and served, although the petition was filed before he came into the county. William Mosher v. August Huwaldt et al., 86 Neb. 686, 126 N.W. 143.

Was the defendant privileged from service of this process because of his attendance as a witness, to give his deposition in another action? There appears to be no decision by a United States court directly upon this point. The privilege of suitors and witnesses from service of process is not founded upon any statute of this state, and, as it is a question of general jurisprudence, a definition of the common-law privilege, it is the duty of this court to decide the question by the exercise of its independent judgment. Hale v. Wharton et al. (C.C.) 73 F. 739-746; Skinner & Mounce Co. v. Waite et al. (C.C.) 155 F. 828-831; Kaufman v. Garner (C.C.) 173 F. 550-552.

The reason why this privilege is extended to suitors and witnesses has often been stated. It is to secure to them the right to give testimony and assistance in the trial of an action, unhindered by exposure to suits by reason of their presence upon the court. The rule is founded in public policy, and is for the benefit of the court, as well as of the parties. Its application has been illustrated by many decisions of the United States courts, exhibiting a liberal interpretation in favor of the privilege. Parker v. Hotchkiss, 1 Wall.Jr. 269, Fed. Cas. No. 10,739; Lyell v. Goodwin, Fed. Cas. No. 8,616; United States v. Bridgman et al., Fed. Cas. No. 14,645; Brooks et al. v. Farwell et al. (C.C.) 4 Fed. 166; Bridges v. Sheldon (C.C.) 7 Fed. 17, 44; Plimpton v. Winslow (C.C.) 9 Fed. 365; Atchison v. Morris (C.C.) 11 F. 582; Larned v. Griffin (C.C.) 12 F. 590; Nichols v. Horton (C.C.) 14 F. 327; Wilson Sewing Machine Co. v. Wilson (C.C.) 22 F. 803; Small v. Montgomery (C.C.) 23 F. 707; Ex parte Schulenburg (C.C.) 25 F. 211; Kauffman v. Kennedy (C.C.) 25 F. 785; Holyoke & South Hadley Falls Ice Co. v. Ambden (C.C.) 55 F. 593; Kinne et al. v. Lant (C.C.) 68 F. 436; Hale v. Wharton et al., supra; Morrow v. U. H. Dudley & Co. (D.C.) 144 F. 441; Skinner & Mounce Co. v. Waite et al., supra; Peet v. Fowler (C.C.) 170 F. 618; Kaufman v. Garner, supra.

The privilege has been extended, not only to those who attend before the court upon the trial, but also to those who attend as parties, either as defendant or plaintiff, or as witnesses, before masters in chancery, registers in bankruptcy, examiners, and commissioners to take depositions. 1 Gr.on Ev. § 317; Bridges v. Sheldon, supra; Plimpton v. Winslow, supra; Larned v. Griffin, supra; Morrow v. U. H. Dudley & Co., supra; Parker v. Marco, 136 N.Y. 585, 32 N.E. 989, 20 L.R.A. 45, 32 Am.St.Rep. 770; Miller v. Dungan, 37 N.J.Law, 182; First Nat. Bank of St. Paul v. Ames et al., 39 Minn. 179, 39 N.W. 308. rather than upon notice and by service of subpoena, does not impair the privilege. 1 Gr.on Ev. § 316; Plimpton v. Winslow, supra; Parker v. Marco, supra.

It is contended that the defendant was not privileged from service of process in this case, because his attendance before the notary was not an attendance before the court, nor before any tribunal vested with the authority of the court. The decisions in the cases of Greer v. Young, 120 Ill 184, 11 N.E. 167, and Cassem v. Galvin, 158 Ill. 30, 41 N.E. 1087, support these conclusions. In those cases the exemption from service of process in such cases was denied, because the defendant had ample time to prepare his defense, and also because the depositions were not taken before a tribunal such as a master, referee, or commissioner, acting under an order of the court. It was also said that the notary could not rule upon the admission of evidence, nor was such officer within the control of the court. The first reason would deny the privilege to any suitor or witness, even if he were attending the trial under subpoena, because he would have the same length of time to prepare for his defense. That a notary, taking depositions, is not a tribunal having the powers, for example, of a master in chancery, does not seem important. The witness may be compelled by process or rule to attend before such officer. He may...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Thomas v. Blackwell
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • 4 Junio 1935
    ... ... v. Wilson [C ... C.] 23 Blatchf. 51, 22 F. 803; Small v. Montgomery ... [C. C.] 23 F. 707; Kinne v. Lant [C. C.] 68 F ... 436; Hale v. Wharton [C. C.] 73 F. 739; Morrow ... v. U. H. Dudley & Co. [D. C.] 144 F. 441; Skinner & Mounce Co. v. Waite [C. C.] 155 F. 828; Peet v ... Fowler [C. C.] 170 F. 618; Roschynialski v. Hale [D. C.] ... 201 F. 1017." ...          The ... case of Netograph Mfg. Co. v. George R. Scrugham, supra, is ... often quoted in ... ...
  • State v. Superior Court of King County
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 24 Mayo 1920
    ... ... exemption from arrest: Stewart v. Ramsey, 242 U.S ... 128, 37 S.Ct. 44, 61 L.Ed. 192; Hale v. Wharton (C ... C.) 73 F. 739; Parker v. Hotchkiss, 1 Wall. Jr ... 269, F. Cas. No. 10,739; Wilson Sewing Machine Co. v. Wilson, ... C.) 170 F. 618; Kaufman v. Garner (C ... C.) 173 F. 550; Skinner & M. Co. v. Waite (C ... C.) 155 F. 828; Roschynialski v. Hale (D. C.) ... 201 F. 1017; Larned v. Griffin (C. C.) 12 F. 590; ... In re Healey, 53 Vt. 694, 38 Am ... [189 P. 1018] ... ...
  • Burroughs v. Cocke
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • 1 Febrero 1916
    ...before the court upon the actual trial, but also those who attend as witnesses or suitors in the taking of depositions. Roschynialski v. Hale (D. C.) 201 F. 1017; Parker v. Marco, 136 N.Y. 585, 32 N.E. 989, 20 L. R. A. 45, 32 Am. St. Rep. 770; Larned v. Griffin (C. C.) 12 F. 590; Powell et ......
  • Higgins v. California Prune & Apricot Growers, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 2 Junio 1922
    ... ... attorneys to aid in the taking of depositions to be used at ... the trial (Read v. Neff (D.C.) 207 F. 890). And see ... Roschynialski v. Hale (D.C.) 201 F. 1017, 1019, ... 1020; Kinne v. Lant (C.C.) 68 F. 436, 441; ... Plimpton v. Winslow (C.C.) 9 Fed. 365, 366; ... Parker v ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT