Bullock Electric Mfg. Co. v. Crocker Wheeler Co.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey

Bullock Electric Mfg. Co. v. Crocker Wheeler Co.

121 F. 200, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5329

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey

DecidedNovember 21, 1902

StatusPublished

This text of 121 F. 200 (Bullock Electric Mfg. Co. v. Crocker Wheeler Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bullock Electric Mfg. Co. v. Crocker Wheeler Co., 121 F. 200, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5329 (circtdnj 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

KIRKPATRICK, District Judge.

This motion Is twofold: (i) To strike from the files the deposition of a witness, who is one of the complainants in this cause, because he refused to produce on demand an agreement which he had made with his co-complainant in regard to the patent which is involved in this suit; or (2) to open his deposition, and require him to produce said agreement, and subject himself to further cross-examination.

The only object sought to be obtained by the production of this paper called for which is noted in the record is that the same is “material, relevant, and competent to prove the interest of the witness”; but the witness is one of the complainants, and his interest is conceded. The paper is not necessary for that purpose. If for any other purpose the paper is required, its production can be obtained through a subpoena duces tecum, which the witness, though a party to this suit, is bound to obey. In such case the witness is under protection of the court, who will see to it that he be not compelled to disclose the contents of the paper until the court has had an opportunity to determine if it be necessary for him to do so.

There is nothing in the moving papers tending to show that the paper called for contains anything relevant or material to the issue, and the motion for its production is denied.

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

KIRKPATRICK, District Judge.

This motion Is twofold: (i) To strike from the files the deposition of a witness, who is one of the complainants in this cause, because he refused to produce on demand an agreement which he had made with his co-complainant in regard to the patent which is involved in this suit; or (2) to open his deposition, and require him to produce said agreement, and subject himself to further cross-examination.

The only object sought to be obtained by the production of this paper called for which is noted in the record is that the same is “material, relevant, and competent to prove the interest of the witness”; but the witness is one of the complainants, and his interest is conceded. The paper is not necessary for that purpose. If for any other purpose the paper is required, its production can be obtained through a subpoena duces tecum, which the witness, though a party to this suit, is bound to obey. In such case the witness is under protection of the court, who will see to it that he be not compelled to disclose the contents of the paper until the court has had an opportunity to determine if it be necessary for him to do so.

There is nothing in the moving papers tending to show that the paper called for contains anything relevant or material to the issue, and the motion for its production is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 F. 200, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bullock-electric-mfg-co-v-crocker-wheeler-co-circtdnj-1902.