Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. R. v. Circuit Judge

Michigan Supreme Court

Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. R. v. Circuit Judge

1 McGrath 463, 60 McGrath 232

DecidedFebruary 19, 1886

StatusPublished

This text of 1 McGrath 463 (Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. R. v. Circuit Judge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. R. v. Circuit Judge, 1 McGrath 463, 60 McGrath 232 (Mich. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

To compel the commitment of a witness for contempt in refusing to answer certain questions.

Denied February 19, 1886.

Fletcher, residing in Detroit, filed a bill in equity in Kansas, against relator, and was summoned to appear before respondent under the statute allowing witnesses to be examined in foreign states before circuit judges and certain other officers.

He refused to answer certain questions, and the circuit judge declined to commit him, on the- double ground of want of power in himself and of adequate means within the control •of the court, where the suit is pending.

Held, that imprisonment as a means of coercion for civil purposes is not allowed by law until other means fail, and that the court, where the suit is pending, has ample means to enforce -any conditions which it has a right to exact.

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

To compel the commitment of a witness for contempt in refusing to answer certain questions.

Denied February 19, 1886.

Fletcher, residing in Detroit, filed a bill in equity in Kansas, against relator, and was summoned to appear before respondent under the statute allowing witnesses to be examined in foreign states before circuit judges and certain other officers.

He refused to answer certain questions, and the circuit judge declined to commit him, on the- double ground of want of power in himself and of adequate means within the control •of the court, where the suit is pending.

Held, that imprisonment as a means of coercion for civil purposes is not allowed by law until other means fail, and that the court, where the suit is pending, has ample means to enforce -any conditions which it has a right to exact.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 McGrath 463, 60 McGrath 232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atchison-topeka-santa-fe-r-r-v-circuit-judge-mich-1886.