William Dreier v. United States No 358 William Dreier v. William Henkel No 359
| Decision Date | 21 October 1910 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 358 and 359,s. 358 and 359 |
| Citation | 31 S.Ct. 550,221 U.S. 394,55 L.Ed. 784 |
| Parties | WILLIAM DREIER, Piff. in Err., v. UNITED STATES. NO 358. WILLIAM DREIER, Appt., v. WILLIAM HENKEL, U. S. Marshal for the Southern District of New York. NO 359 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. W. Wickham Smith and John K. Maxwell for plaintiff in error and appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from page 395 intentionally omitted] Assistant to the Attorney General Kenyon, Attorney General Wickersham, and Mr. O. E. Harrison for defendant in error and appellee.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 396-399 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Hughes delivered the opinion of the court:
The plaintiff in error and appellant, William Dreier, was subpoenaed to produce before the grand jury in the circuit court certain books and papers of the Lichtenstein Millinery Company, a New York corporation, of which he was the secretary. The grand jury was conducting an inquiry with respect to alleged violations of the customs laws by N. Hayes and others. The subpoena contained the ad testificandum clause, but the only question presented is with respect to the demand for the corporate documents. For his refusal to produce them for the inspection of the grand jury, Dreier was committed for contempt. The first case (No. 358) is a writ of error to the circuit court to review the judgment holding him to be in contempt, and directing his commitment; and the second (No. 359) is an appeal from an order dismissing a writ of habeas corpus. The contention of Dreier in both cases is that the contents of the books and papers would tend to incriminate him, and that the proceedings to compel their production were in violation of the 5th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
It is urged that if he had a privilege, his conduct was such as to constitute a waiver. But it is not necessary to consider the case in this aspect. Dreier was not entitled to refuse the production of the corporate records. By virtue of the fact that they were the documents of the corporation in his custody, and not his private papers, he was under obligation to produce them when called for by proper process. Wilson v. United States (decided this day), 221 U. S. 361, 55 L. ed. ——, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 538. In that case the writ was directed to the corporateion, and here it was addressed to the custodian. As he had no privilege with respect to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Fairbanks
...the hands of their possessor. E.g., Wilson v. United States, 221 U.S. 361 31 S.Ct. 538, 55 L.Ed. 771 (1911); Dreier v. United States, 221 U.S. 394 31 S.Ct. 550, 55 L.Ed. 784 (1911); United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694 64 S.Ct. 1248, 88 L.Ed. 1542 (1944); Bellis v. United States, 417 U.S. 8......
-
Grand Jury Proceedings of Guarino, Matter of
...which should be treated as public records and corporate officers as the custodians of those records); Dreier v. United States, 221 U.S. 394, 31 S.Ct. 550, 55 L.Ed. 784 (1911) (same as Wilson when subpoena directed to individual corporate officer); United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694, 64 S.......
-
Grand Jury Matter, In re
...infra at 531.2 In pertinent part, the Supreme Court stated:Moreover, in Wilson v. United States, supra; Dreier v. United States, supra [221 U.S. 394, 31 S.Ct. 550, 55 L.Ed. 784 (1911) ]; United States v. White, supra; Bellis v. United States, supra; and In re Harris, supra, the custodian of......
-
Braswell v. United States
...which the corporation was bound to recognize." Id., at 385, 31 S.Ct., at 546. In a companion case, Dreier v. United States, 221 U.S. 394, 31 S.Ct. 550, 55 L.Ed. 784 (1911), the Court applied the holding in Wilson to a Fifth Amendment attack on a subpoena addressed to the corporate custodian......
-
Caught Between a Rock and a Hard Place
...v. Gecas, 120 F.3d 1419, 1424 (11th Cir. 1997). [11] Braswell v. United States, 487 U.S. 99, 104-05 (1988); Dreier v. United States, 221 U.S. 394, 399-400 (1911); United States v. Medlin, 986 F.2d 463, 467-68 (11th Cir. 1993); SEC v. First Jersey Sec., Inc., 843 F.2d 74, 76 (2d Cir. 1988); ......