COATES 'l1. MERRtcx: THREAD CO.
It is not an unusual proceeding in courts of equity, where questions arise in which time may be-taken to determine the value of certain rights, to declare conditions upon which injunctions will be granted or refused. Bonds of indemnity are not only consistent with the general principles of equity, but are in frequent use. Stewart v. Railroad Lb., 7 Smedes & M. 568; Floyd v. Turne:r, 23 Tex. 292; Railroad Co. v. Railroad Co., 2 McCrary, 260. This appears to be the only course in this case by which the rights of both parties will be fully protected, and the burden of untlsual hardship rest upon neither. Untilsueh bond be given, defendant may be enjoined from proceeding. It is therefore ordered that an injunction issue, as prayed, until the defendant company take steps under the state laws for ascertaining the value of the land taken for railroad purposes, now occupied by plaintiff, and give a bond for payment of the amount of damages a.warded., whenever tbe land-office decides the plaintifl' herein is entitled to the land, and a patent issues therefor.
et al. v.
(CircuU Court, 8. D. New York. July 14,1887.)
in elfect.to turn the proceedi'ngs into viva voce examina.tion; arid,.i'! the power to
. An order for .oral cross-elCamination of a witness whent(.lking his deposition is, .. in
make th'e. order is discretionary with the court,.it will C8seo! necessity.
In Equity. On motion for a commission to take a deposition.· Frederick H. Betts, for plaintiffs. William a. Witte:r, for defendants.
LAOOMBl:, J. This is a motion for a commission to take thetestimcmy of Frederick· Smith, of Burlington, Kan., as a witness' on the part- of complainants, upon interrogatories in the usual form. The granting of the motion is practically unopposed, but defendants insist that they should be allowed to attendby counsel before the commissioner, and to cross-examine the witness orally, if they so desire. In effect, this would turn the proceeding into a viva voce examination, because it can hardly be supposed that the cOD)plainaIlta will run the risk of waiving all redirect examination, as they must necessarily do, if they are not advised in advance what cross-interrogatories will be put. Withou't passing upon the two points raised by complainants, viz., that such a composite COIl;lwission as· is proposed is not known to equity practioe, and that no oral examination, whether director cro!ls, can be had without the notice reqUired by equity rule 67, I am of. the opinion that the modification asked for by theg.elelldants should· not be allowed. Concededly, st1ch a mode of taking proof,namely, by interrogatories in chief settled in:advance, and
in p.dvance, rbut suggeated,u POD the an!t ,extr!tordillur}'. If its l;L1lowllUpeia ;within' thedispretiPD of the¢Qn.rt,stlch disoretion should only, ,be exerro&ed when a of necessi1iyjs,.made out., There is nothing in the papers lilubmitte(tto indicate,theexisteneeof spch necessity., The name, residenqe" Of personal lloPIleaI'aBce of the supposed agent, the circumstances attending his visit, and his !!tatements as to himself and his business. so fll-r are within the knowledge of the witness, can surely be elicited from. the prepared in: the usual way.
AltNoLn :et' al. v.
(OWcwl.t Oourt, E. D. Nf'/W York. July 16,1886.)
ATTOBNBT AND CLIBNT-PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS.
A 8ubprena duces teC'ltm will not be issued to compel the production by an attorneyof a letter given him by bis client as a paper material to bis defense, wbich the attorney declines to deliver on the ground of privilege, no reason appearing why such process cannot be served on the client.
In Equity. On motion for a aubpama duces tecum. George Norris, fOf i plaintiffs. ,;,.,'" BliBB k Schley, for defendants.
examinerand;the,mo'tionof the whether the attorney 'Qf the.' defendant Charles Augustus Chesebrough can, by a subprena dUces tecum, be combypne which the attorney received from his client a80I;l.fl oUbe to, his letter upon defense inthis action; the attorney .9J1clining the ground of privilege, and there being nothing m the case to show it to dtl-qu,tec11/ffl upon th!1 de£-epdapt, from, whom receiyed Jetter., . :Upon, this, gropnd..;my; opinion,is ,that Q9U:lpelled ,to .
ZQm.lfi(sUFPIClBNOY bi PltOOlr TO SmOR'!' A IiEcRBE lr6R ii RECONvJiYANOB, , :..,The, defendant; whlil';"'as1tenant' life; of' a .moiety ofcertatn r$&l estate, en",' W-,tP.,negotiatioq'iWWji ,the .of .the .· I tlie'com p lai..nal1t, for tlie" of theIr entire interest therj'ltn; and wrote to the ."11he.b8ir8) estate: have an agreed to' take $6;000, '!andthat, if IIhewoulll.ell her,inj;er.e1\t"the sarne .astlJ,e otbers," 4e would buy it, Relying pn thIs 'represeritatiop shecltitl'veyed ber the defendant. The proof was tbat . ;. two,oHhe;tenantil lb.eotnmbn ,had agreed, orallY,with ,the defendantro: Illlllthelr