Hammerschlag Manuf'g Co. v. Judd

26 F. 292, 1886 U.S. App. LEXIS 1942
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts
DecidedJanuary 29, 1886
StatusPublished

This text of 26 F. 292 (Hammerschlag Manuf'g Co. v. Judd) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hammerschlag Manuf'g Co. v. Judd, 26 F. 292, 1886 U.S. App. LEXIS 1942 (circtdma 1886).

Opinion

Colt, J.

When either party, on motion for a preliminary injunction, desires to take the testimony of an unwilling witness, application should be made to the court, and notice given to the other side. The motion should be in writing, and should set forth the name or names of the witnesses, and briefly the purpose for which they are to be called. The court should then, if the application is a proper one, appoint an examiner to take such testimony, due notice to be given to the other side, who should have the right of cross-examination. The defendant’s motion for subpoena, in its present form, and also his motion for attachment, must be denied.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
26 F. 292, 1886 U.S. App. LEXIS 1942, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hammerschlag-manufg-co-v-judd-circtdma-1886.