Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

57 How. Pr. 171

Jenkins v. Smith

New York Supreme Court

Decided July 15, 1878

New York Supreme Court · decided 1878-07-15

Ur January, 1878, the above defendants who were residents of Springfield, Mass., were indicted jointly with the Sheeler Brothers of Lyons, 27. Y., for a violation of the laws of the United States relating to trade-marks. The indictment was found in the United States district court held at Albany in January, Í878.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1878-07-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently December 1965

3 state decisions

101878188018901900191019201930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Noxon, J.

¶1The practice seems to be well settled that a non-resident witness in onr courts can neither be arrested nor served with summons; his privilege protects him.

¶2It is also well settled that a resident witness is privileged from arrest, hut not from the service of a summons. With the exception of the case referred to in 66 New York, 124, I can find no case where the privilege of a suitor has protected him from the ordinary service of civil process. In a number of cases where the party was arrested, upon motion to set aside the order of - arrest the motion has been granted upon the entry of common bail, thus leaving the party as effectually served with process as if served with the ordinary summons. The case in 66 New York only presented the question so often adjudicated upon in relation to witnesses; as to suitors there was no question before the court, and the opinion of justice Allen was wholly outside of the question before the court, and is not" an authority to be considered in this ease. The long list of authorities upon this question, so repeatedly concurred in, have not been overruled in the case in 66 New York. When that court shall have presented before it the question arising in this case, and shall determine the law in opposition to the law as it has been promulgated and sanctioned for many years, it will be time to follow its decision.

¶3Under my present view of the law the defendant is not entitled to the order asked for in the motion, and the same should be denied, with costs.

/57/howpr/171 · .json · Public domain