Page images


those rules in 1842. Ryder v. Bateman, !1898) 93 Fed. Rep. 31.

Sufficient notice. “ Notice must be given the party required to produce the books or writings, or his attorney, a suflicient length of time for the party to appear and show cause, if any he has, why the rule shall not be made, when he may, in opposition to the rule, show by affidavit that he has no such books or papers under his control, or any other reason he may have why the rule shall not be made. If any issue is made upon the motion, the court will hear proof, and grant or refuse the rule according to the proof and nature of the case.” Lowenstein v. Carey, (1882) 12 Fed. Rep. 811.

Production at and before trial. - The federal courts have, under this section, power to order the production of books and papers at the trial, and also before the trial, when issue has been joined, for inspection, in order to prepare for trial. Gray i. Schneider, (1902) 119 Fed. Rep. 474; Victor G. Bloede Co. v. Joseph Bancroft, etc., Co., (1899) 98 Fed. Rep. 175. Henszey 19. Langdon-Henszey Coal Min. Co., (1897) 30 Fed. Rep. 178; Lucker r. Phænix Assur. Co., (1895) 67 Fed. Rep. 18; Exchange Nat. Bank 1. Washita Cattle Co., (1894) 61 Fed. Rep. 190; Brewster v. Tuthill Spring Co., (1888) 34 Fed. Rep. 769; Paine v. Warren, (1888) 33 Fed. Rep. 357; Gregory v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., (1882) 10 Fed. Rep. 529; Coit v. North Carolina Gold Amalgamating Co., (1881) 9 Fed. Rep. 577; Geyger r. Geyger, (1795) 2 Dall. (U. S.) 332, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,375; Central Bank 1. Tayloe, (1823) 2 Cranch (C. C.) 427, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2.548; Jacques 1. Collins, (1846) 2 Blatchf. (l'. S.) 23, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,167; Finch v. Rikeman, (1851) 2 Blatchf. (U. S.) 301, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4,788; U. S. v. Youngs, (1879)

10 Ben. (U. S.) 264, 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,783; U. S. v. Hutton, (1879) 10 Ben. (U. S.) 268, 26 Fed. Cas. No. 15,433; Easton v. Hodges, (.1877) 7 Biss. (U. S.) 324, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,258.

But see U. S. v. National Lead Co., (1896) 75 Fed. Rep. 94, holding that the production must be " at the trial ” and at no other time; Hylton v. Brown, (1806) 1 Wash. (U. S.) 298, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,981; Triplett v. Washington Bank, (1829) 3 Cranch (C. C.) 646, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,178; Jasigi 1. Brown, (1853) 1 Curt. (U. S.) 401, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,993. Remedy in case of noncompliance. “In

of noncompliance by one party, the remedy of the other is restricted to the obtaining, in the discretion of the court, of a judgment of nonsuit or by default, as the case may be,” the court not having power to compel jurisdiction by attachment. Victor G. Bloede Co. v. Joseph Bancroft, etc., Co., (1901) 110 Fed. Rep. 76 [citing with approval, Iasigi v. Brown, (1853) 1 Curt. (U. S.) 401, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,993; Merchants Nat. Bank v. State Nat. Bank, (1868) 3 Cliff. (U. S.) 201, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,448].

In order to obtain a nonsuit or a judgment by default there must be a notice of motion for an order for discovery, followed by an order which has been disobeyed. Owyhoe Land, etc., Co. v. Tautphaus, (C. C. A. 1901) 109 Fed. Rep. 547; U. S. Bank v. Kurtz, (1822) 2 Cranch (C. C.) 342, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 920; Bas v. Steele, (1818) 3 Wash. (U. S.) 381, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 1,088; Maye v. Carbery, (1822) 2 Cranch (C. C.) 336, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 9,339; Thompson v. Selden, (1857) 20 How. (U. S.) 194; Dunham v. Riley, (1821) 4 Wash. (U. S.) 126, in which the court held also that the order need not be absolute in the first instance, but may be nisi.

Sec. 858. [Relates to exclusion of witness on account of color or interest. See WITNESSES.]

Sec. 859. [Testimony of witnesses before Congress not admissible against them in criminal prosecutions.] No testimony given by a witness before either House, or before any committee of either House of Congress, shall be used as evidence in any criminal proceeding against him in any court, except in a prosecution for perjury committed in giving such testimony. But an official paper or record produced by him is not within the said privilege. [R. S.]

Act of Jan. 24, 1862, ch. ll, 12 Stat. L. (Evidence) of title 13 (Judiciary) of the Re333; Act of Jan. 24, 1857, ch. 19, 11 Stat. L. vised Statutes. 156.

Witnesses and testimony on Congressional Sections 858 to 910 constitute chapter 17 investigations, see CONGRESS, vol. 2, pp. 238,


Sec. 860. [Pleadings, disclosures, etc., not to be used in criminal proceedings.] No pleading of a party, nor any discovery or evidence obtained from a party or witness by means of a judicial proceeding in this or any foreign country, shall be given in evidence, or in any manner used against him or his property or estate, in any court of the United States, in any criminal proceeding, or for the enforcement of any penalty or forfeiture: Provided, That this section shall not esempt any party or witness from prosecution and punishment for perjury committed in discovering or testifying as aforesaid. [R. S.]





Act of Feb. 25, 1868, ch. 13, 15 Stat. L, 37. This section does not "make it incompetent

Pleading of a party,” etc. – Where an to contradict a party who testifies in his own affidavit was made by an indicted party under behalf, by showing that on another occasion, see. 878, R. S., setting forth that there were in a prosecution against another party, he, witnesses whose evidence was material to his as a witness, gave a different account of the defense, and that he was actually unable to transaction, such account of itself having no procure the attendance of said witnesses, and tendency to criminate the witness, but rather it appearing that they might be summoned at to place the responsibility wholly upon anthe expense of the United States, it was held other.” U, S. v. Smith, (1891) 47 Fed. Rep. that such affidavit is not a pleading of a 501. party” nor discovery or evidence obtained “It is for the judge before whom the quesfrom a party or witness by means of a judi- tion arises to decide whether an answer to cial proceeding," within the meaning of sec- the question put may reasonably have a tendtion 860. Tucker v. U.S., (1894) 151 U.S. 164. ency to criminate the witness, or to furnish

The “ discovery or evidence” referred to in proof of a link in the chain of evidence necesthis section is of a personal nature to which sary to convict him of a crime.” Wyckoff v. the party can make oath, the statute con- Wagner Typewriter Co., (1899) 99 Fed. Rep. templating a case where he should make dis- 158 [citing Ex p. Irvine, (1896) 74 Fed. Rep. covery, or give evidence, in such form that he

954]; U. S. v. McCarthy, (1883) 18 Fed. could swear to the truth of his statements, Rep. 87. that those statements should not be given in Vote of grand jury. -" After evidence has evidence against him, when prosecuted crim- been taken in an investigation, and the inally, or for a penalty, but that, if he testi- (grand] jury votes upon the question whether fied or made discovery upon oath falsely, he this shows that A has probably committed an should suffer the punishment due to a per- offense, its vote is taken in the same proceedjurer.” U. S. v. Hughes, (1875) 12 Blatchf. ing, and the evidence taken is not used else(U. S.) 553.

where," within this section. U. S. v. Kim"Evidence obtained from party.” – ball, (1902) 117 Fed. Rep. 156. Where, pursuant to section 2 of the Act of The protection of this section is not coexMarch 2, 1867, 14 Stat. L. 546, ch. 188, a war- tensive with the constitutional provision of rant had been issued for the seizure of partner- the Fifth Amendment declaring that “no pership books and papers, in a suit by the United

shall be compelled in any States against a firm for the value of certain criminal case to be a witness against himimports alleged to have been forfeited under self,” as the section “ does not supply a comthe customs revenue law, it was held that plete protection from all the perils against section 860 did not preclude the offering at which the constitutional prohibition was dethe trial of the books and papers so seized signed to guard, and is not a full substitute on the part of the plaintiffs, as the evidence for that prohibition,” affording “no prothus offered was not obtained from the tection against that use of compelled testiparty, within the meaning of this section. U. mony which consists in gaining therefrom a S. v. Hughes, (1875) 12 Blatchf. (U. S.) 553, knowledge of the details of a crime, and of 26 Fed. Cas. No. 15,417, reversing (1875) 21 sources of information which may supply Int. Rev. Rec. 76, 26 Fed. Cas. No. 15,419. other means of convicting the witness or

Disclosure of a fact upon which a claim party.” Counselman 4. Hitchcock, (1892) for penalties under sections 4963, 4965, may 142 U. S. 547, reversing In re Counselman, depend. — Defendants in an action upon an (1890) 44 Fed. Rep. 268; U. S. v. Bell, (1897) alleged infringement of a copyright on a pho- 81 Fed. Rep. 830; Ex p. Irvine, (1896) 74 tograph cannot be required to make a dis- Fed. Rep. 954; La Bourgogne, (1900) 10l closure, by answer or otherwise, of any fact Fed. Rep. 823. upon which a claim against them for penalties But see U. S. v. Brown, (1871) 1 Sawy. (U. for the violation of secs. 4963, 4965, R. S., S.) 531, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,671, where the may depend; nor can they be required to pro- court held that, under this section, a witness duce any books or papers which would sub- may be compelled to answer, when inquiry ject them to a penalty. Snow v. Mast, (1894) is pertinent to any judicial proceeding, be63 Fed. Rep. 623, citing Johnson v. Donald- cause it may be necessary to the ends of son, (1880) 3 Fed. Rep. 22.

justice as to others,” and his answer cannot Judicial proceeding. — Where, upon the be used against himself. order of the executive departments of the And see U. S. V. McCarthy, (1883) 21 Blatchf. government, made in a legitimate exercise of (U. S.) 469, wherein it was held that, where its powers for the enforcement of the laws, a there was a complaint against a certain party collector of internal revenue has seized the for perjury, a witness against whom no charge books of a distillery, which are kept pursuant was pending when prosecution threatened was to secs. 3303, 3304, R. S., false entries where- not relieved from answering certain questions in, or an omission to make such entries as the on the ground that his answer thereto might law requires, or a refusal to produce which incriminate himself, although he did not upon proper demand, will subject the distiller specify or indicate any offense in regard to to forfeiture, it was held that such seizure is which his answers might tend to such incriminot “a judicial proceeding” within the mean- nation, as it was held that this section would ing of section 860, and the government may give him complete protection. use the books as evidence at the trial for for- Constitutionality of immunity proviso. feiture. U. S. v. Myers, (1876) 1 Hughes (U. " Whether the proviso to R. S., see. 860, that S.) 533.

the immunity shall not operate to protect the

[ocr errors]

witness against prosecutions for perjury committed in the examination itself, is consistent with the constitutional guaranty," quære. U. S. . Bell, (1897) 81 Fed. Rep. 830.

Partial repeal in revenue law cases. — So much of this section as relates to the use of evidence against a party for the enforcement of a penalty or forfeiture is repealed by the

Act of June 22, 1874, ch. 391, sec. 5, requiring the production of books and papers by compulsory process, in any proceeding other than criminal arising under the revenue laws. U. S. v. Three Tons Coal, (1875) 6 Biss. (U. S.) 379. But such section 5 has been held unconstitutional. See infra, p. 43.

Sec, 861, [Mode of proof in common-law actions.] The mode of proof in the trial of actions at common law shall be by oral testimony and examination of witnesses in open court, except as hereinafter provided. [R. S.]

Act of Sept. 24, 1789, ch. 20, 1 Stat. L. Co. v. Leland, (C. C. A. 1899) 94 Fed. Rep. 88; Aet of Feb. 20, 1812, ch. 25, 2 Stat. L. 502, (1896) 77 Fed. Rep. 242. 682; Act of Jan. 24, 1827, ch. 4, 4 Stat. Where an action in a state court has been L. 197, 199.

discontinued and an action is subsequently Examination of party before trial. - A instituted in a federal court between the same party to an action at law in a federal court parties and for the same claim, it was held cannot be examined at the instance of the ad- that depositions taken for the purpose of the verse party before trial, except in cases where first action cannot be used in the second acdepositions before trial are specially author- tion; notwithstanding the fact that the pracized. Easton v. Hodges, (1877) 7 Biss. (U. tice in the state permits the use of depositions S.) 324.

taken in a pending action to be used in a The fact that there is provision for such renewed suit on the same cause of action examination by a state statute in state courts and between the same parties. Seeley v. Kandoes not authorize such examination in any sas City Star Co., (1896) 71 Fed. Rep. 554. federal court, Ex p. Fisk, (1885) 113 U. S. Where an action was removed from a state 713; Beardsley v. Littell, (1877) 14 Blatchf. to a federal court and interrogatories were (U. S.) 102; Colgate v. Compagnie Francaise, attached to the petition, in accordance with etc., (1885) 23 Fed. Rep. 82. But see Bryant the statutory provisions of the state, it was r. Leyland, (1881) 6 Fed. Rep. 125.

held that, relying upon section 861, the deThe examination of a party before trial fendant need not file answers to such intereommenced in a suit in a state court cannot be rogatories. Pierce v. Union Pac. R. Co., continued after the removal of such suit to (1891) 47 Fed. Rep. 709, following Ex p. the federal court. Ex p. Fisk, (1885) 113 Fisk, (1885) 113 U. S. 713. L'. S. 713, reversing Fogg 1. Fisk, (1884) 19 The testimony given at a former trial by a Fed. Rep. 235.

witness, the legal presumption being that he This section does not appear to refer to was within the jurisdiction of the court, is discovery, whether by bill or interrogatory. not admissible under this section. Salt Lake Bryant t. Leyland, (1881) 6 Fed. Rep. 125. City v. Smith, (C. C. A. 1900) 104 Fed. Rep.

Mode of examination: federal and state 457. acts. — “In determining, therefore, whether Right to trial by jury. - Rule No. 73 of the the right exists to take testimony by depo- Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, sitions in common-law causes pending in the providing that “in any action arising ex federal courts, reference must be had to the

contractu, if the plaintiff or his agent shall statutes of the United States, When, how- have filed

an affidavit setting out ever, the facts are such in a given case that, distinctly his cause of action,

and under the provisions of the statutes of the shall have served the defendant with copies United States, the right to take the testimony of his declaration and of said affidavit, he of witnesses by depositions exists, then, as shall be entitled to a judgment for the to the mere mode of procuring the deposition, amount so claimed,

unless the departies may follow at their election either fendant shall file, along with his plea, if in the provisions of the state law or of the Act bar, an affidavit of defense denying the right of Congress.” McLennan 1. Kansas City, of the plaintiff as to the whole or some specietc., R. Co., (1884) 22 Fed. Rep. 198.

fied part of his claim, and specifically stating But where the mode of proceeding pre- also, in precise and distinct terms, the seribed by the laws of the state conflicts with grounds of his defense,” does not deprive the laws of the United States, in reference to the defendant who has filed a plea in the taking of depositions, depositions taken bar, and has claimed the benefit of trial according to the mode prescribed by the state by jury, but who has not filed the affidavit statutes cannot be admitted in an action at of defense pursuant to the rule, of his right law in a federal court. Randall v. Venable, to a trial by jury; as the rule simply "pre(1883) 17 Fed. Rep. 162.

scribes the means of making an issue,” and Interrogatories disallowed. - Where inter- the issue having been made as prescribed, the rogatories to the opposite party had been filed right of trial by jury accrues. Fidelity, etc., in the manner and form prescribed by state Co. v. U. S., (1902) 187 U. S. 315, citing and statute, it was held that, under section 861, following Smoot r. Rittenhouse, decided by these could not be allowed in legal actions in the Supreme Court Jan. 10, 1876, and rethe federal courts. National Cash-Register ported in 27 Wash. L. Rep. 741.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


Order for surgical examination. — A state statute, giving the court in personal injury cases the right to order a surgical examination of the plaintiff, does not conflict with this section, and a federal court in a state where such statute prevails may order such

an examination. Camden, etc., R. Co. v. Stetson, (1900) 177 U. S. 172. In the absence of such a state statute, however, the court has no power to make the order. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Botsford, (1891) 141 U. S. 250.

Sec. 862. [Mode of proof in equity and admiralty causes.] The mode of proof in causes of equity and of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction shall be according to rules now or hereafter prescribed by the Supreme Court, except as herein specially provided. [R. S.]

Act of Aug. 23, 1842, ch. 188, 5 Stat. L. 518. cuits other than those in which suits are

Supreme Court regulations. — The Supreme pending, and the courts in the districts to Court, under its power to prescribe rules, which the examiners are sent have power to “having proceeded to regulate this subject- compel the attendance of witnesses. White matter, their regulation must be regarded t'. Toledo, etc., R. Co., (C. C. A. 1897) 79 complete and exclusive, inhibiting what it Fed. Rep. 133 [citing Wayman v. Southard, does not allow, as well as governing what is (1825) 10 Wheat. (U. S.) 1; Beers v. fixed by positive appointment." The Sloop Haughton, (1835) 9 Pet. (U. S.) 359; and Merchant, (1947) Abb. Adm. 1, 17 Fed. Cas. U. S. Bank 1. Halstead, (1825) 10 Wheat. No. 9,434, citing Gibbons 1%. Ogden, (1824) 9 (U. S.) 51]. Wheat. (U. S.) 1.

Repeal of Judiciary Act of 1789. — The JuThe delegation by Congress to the Supreme diciary Act of 1789 (1 Stat. L. 88, ch. 20, sec. Court of the power set out in this section is 30), in relation to the oral examination of constitutional; and the amendment of the witnesses in equity causes, was not expressly 67th Rule of Equity, which was adopted by repealed until the adoption of the Revised virtue of the power so conferred, gives United Statutes.” Blease v. Garlington, (1875) 92 States courts the right to appoint examiners U. S. 1; Coosaw Min. Co. v. Farmers' Min. to take testimony orally in districts and cir- Co., (1895) 67 Fed. Rep. 31.

Sec. 863. [Depositions de bene esse.] The testimony of any witness may be taken in any civil cause depending in a district or circuit court by deposition de bene esse, when the witness lives at a greater distance from the place of trial than one hundred miles, or is bound on a voyage to sea, or is about to go out of the United States, or out of the district in which the case is to be tried, and to a greater distance than one hundred miles from the place of trial, before the time of trial, or when he is ancient and infirm. The deposition may be taken before any judge of any court of the United States, or any commissioner of a circuit court, or any clerk of a district or circuit court, or any chancellor, justice, or judge of a supreme or superior court, mayor or chief magistrate of a city, judge of a county court or court of common pleas of any of the United States, or any notary public, not being of counsel or attorney to either of the parties, nor interested in the event of the cause. Reasonable notice must first be given in writing by the party or his attorney proposing to take such deposition, to the opposite party or his attorney of record, as either may be nearest, which notice shall state the name of the witness and the time and place of the taking of his deposition; and in all cases in rem, the person having the agency or possession of the property at the time of seizure shall be deemed the adverse party, until a claim shall have been put in; and whenever, by reason of the absence from the district and want of an attorney of record or other reason, the giving of the notice herein required shall be impracticable, it shall be lawful to take such depositions as there shall be urgent necessity for taking, upon such notice as any judge authorized to hold courts in such circuit or district shall think reasonable and direct. Any person may be compelled to appear and depose as provided by this section, in the same manner as witnesses may be compelled to appear and testify in court. [R. S.]

Act of Sept. 24, 1789, ch. 20, 1 Stat. L. 88; Act of July 29, 1854, ch. 159, 10 Stat. L. Act of March 1, 1817, ch. 30, 3 Stat. L. 350; 315; Act of May 9, 1872, ch. 146, 17 Stat, Act of Feb, 26, 1853, ch. 80, 10 Stat. L. 168;

L. 89,

For other statutory provisions relative to Bankruptcy proceedings do not fall within lepositions, see the General Index of this work. the purview of this section. in re Dunn,

Notaries public of states may take depo- (1874) 9 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 487, 8 Fed. Cas. sitions, see NOTARIES PUBLIC.

No. 4,173. “There are two general methods for taking Ex parte evidence. “ There is nothing in depositions to be used on the trial of law the law, or in the reason of the case, which cases provided for in the Revised Statutes; supplies a different authority, in respect to the one being the mode pointed out in section ex parte evidence taken out of court, from 863, and the other in section 866. When taken that which legally appertains to the court in under the provisions of the former section, a proceedings before it. The act lices both commission to the officer is not sued out from on the same footing.” In re Judson, (1853) the court in which the cause is pending, but 3 Blatchf. (U. S.) 148. the party desiring to take the testimony gives Limitations of the provisions of the secnotice to the opposite party or his attorney tion. — The provisions of this seciion are of the time and place when and where the “not only limited ly its terms to depositions testimony is to be taken, and selects as de bene esse, but its provisions are expressly the commissioner any one of the parties made inapplicable to section 866.” North named in the section. When depositions American Transp., etc., Co. r. lIowells, (C. C. are thus taken, no opportunity is afforded A. 1903) 121 Fed. Rep. 694. to the opposite party to be heard upon Witnesses in foreign country. - The prothe matter of the selection of the com- visions of this section “ apply to the taking missioner. Hence it is required of the party of depositions of witnesses within the United taking the deposition that he shall select a States, and have no application to the taking disinterested commissioner, and the statute of depositions of witnesses in a foreign requires the party selected to certify that he country." Bird r. Halsy, (1898) 87 Fed. Rep. is not of counsel for either party, nor inter- 671; Cortes Co. 1. Tannhauser, (1883) 18 ested in the event of the suit. If, however, Fed. Rep. 667; The Alexandra, (1900) 104 the depositions are not taken under section Fed. Rep. 904. But see Bischoffscheim v. 863, but under the authority granted in sec- Baltzer, (1882) 10 Fed. Rep. 1. tion 866, then, by the express terms of the Not repealed by section 914. Sections 863 latter section, the provisions of sections 863, to 865, inclusive, set out all the requirements 864, and 865 are not applicable thereto. which must be followed in all examinations Section 866 provides for the court granting a de bene esse in federal courts; and section dedimus, and in so doing it is presumed that 914 does not repeal them. Sage v. Tauszky, the court will select a proper person to act (1877) 6 Cent. L. J. 7, 21 Fed. Cas. No. as the commissioner, and the parties can be 12,214. heard upon the question of the appointment Right to take testimony not limited to before the commission issues. The authority circuit. — Neither by equity rule 67 nor by conferred by section 866 is the granting a R. S. secs. 863, 864, is the right to take testidedimus to take depositions according to mony limited to places within the circuit in common usage.

In other words, if which the action is pending. Thum v. Anthe right to take depositions existed, then the drews, (1892) 53 Fed. Rep. 84. party desiring to take the same might do so Nor to district. - A deposition taken out under the provisions of section 863, or ac- of the district where the trial was held is cording to common usage, which, in an action admissible. Patapsco Ins. Co. v. Southgate, at law, would be deemed to be in accordance (1831) 5 Pet. (U. S.) 604; Russell v. Ashley, with the mode provided for by the statutes (1847) Hempst. (U. S.) 546, 21 Fed. Cas. of the state." Giles v. Paxson, (1888) 36 No. 12,150. Fed. Rep. 882.

Strict construction. -- The authority to The taking of the deposition under this take testimony under the act, “ being in section is “a privilege to be exercised at the derogation of the rules of the common law, option of the party desiring the evidence of has always been construed strictly; and a witness living more than one hundred miles therefore it is necessary to establish that all from the place of trial; ” and the opposite the requisites of the law have been complied party has " no right to demand that, under with before such testimony is admissible.” such circumstances, a deposition should be Bell v. Morrison, (1828) 1 Pet. (U: S.) 351; taken;” and “if the litigant does not exer- Patapsco Ins. Co. v. Southgate, (1831) 5 Pet. cise the option to take the evidence of his (U. S.) 604; Carrington v. Stimson, (1853) witness by deposition, he can recover for i Curt (U. S.) 437, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,450; what he is compelled to pay his witness by Harris v. Wall, (1849) 7 How. (U. S.) law as traveling fees.” Hunter v. Russell, 693; Shankwiker v. Reading, (1847) 4 Mc(1894) 59 Fed. Rep. 964; Prouty v. Draper, Lean (U. S.) 240; Wilkinson v. Yale, (1853) (1842) 2 Story (U. S.) 199, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 6 McLean (U. S.) 16; Luther The 11,447.

Schooner Merritt Hunt, (1853) Newb. Adm. This section applies to equity cases and to 4, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,610; Merrill v. Dawadmiralty cases, which are coupled with son, (1848) Hempst. (U. S.) 563; Jones equity cases under section 862. Stegner v. v. Neale, (1896) 2 Mart. (N. Car.) 136; Blake, (1888) 36 Fed. Rep. 183.

U. S. v. Tilden, (1879) 10 Ben. (U. S.) 566, But depositions taken under this section 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,522, where the court cannot be used as evidence in an equity cause added that the statute “must have a fair and in the Circuit Court of the District of Colum- reasonable construction, having regard to the bia. Walker V. Parker, (1840) 5 Cranch particular purpose it was intended to sub(C. C.) 639, 29 Fed, Cas, No. 17,082.

serve and the special evils it was designed

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »