Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

41 F. 74

Arnold v. Chesebrough

United States Circuit Court for the Eastern District of New York · decided 1886-07-16

<p>In Equity. On motion for a subpoena duces tecum.</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently October 1916

1 federal appellate · 1 district ·

2 counsel of record

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1886-07-16

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Attorney and Client — Privileged Communications.

¶2A subpoena duces tecum will not be issued to compel the production by an attorney of a letter given him by his client as a paper material to his defense, which the attorney declines to deliver on the ground of privilege, no reason appearing why such process cannot be served on the client.

¶3In Equity. On motion for a subpoena duces tecum.

¶4George Norris, for plaintiffs.

¶5Bliss & Schley, for defendants.

¶6Benedict, J.

¶7The certificate of the examiner and the motion of the plaintiff present the question whether the attorney of the defendant •Charles Augustus Chesebrough can, by a subpoena duces tecum,'be compelled to produce a letter written by one Blasius M. Chesebrough, which the attorney received from his client as one of the papers material to his •defense in this action; the attorney declining to produce the letter upon the ground of privilege, and there being nothing in the case to show it impossible to serve a subpoena duces tecum upon the defendant, from whom the attorney received the letter. Upon this ground, my opinion is that the attorney cannot be compelled to produce the letter.

/41/f1d/74 · .json · Public domain