Arnold v. Chesebrough

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York

Arnold v. Chesebrough

41 F. 74, 24 Blatchf. 49, 1886 U.S. App. LEXIS 2525

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York

DecidedJuly 16, 1886

StatusPublished

This text of 41 F. 74 (Arnold v. Chesebrough) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arnold v. Chesebrough, 41 F. 74, 24 Blatchf. 49, 1886 U.S. App. LEXIS 2525 (circtedny 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Benedict, J.

The 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Benedict, J.

The 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 F. 74, 24 Blatchf. 49, 1886 U.S. App. LEXIS 2525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arnold-v-chesebrough-circtedny-1886.