Hurst's Case

1 Wash. C. C. 186, 1 L. Ed. 878, 4 U.S. 387, 12 F. Cas. 1019, 4 Dall. 387, 1804 U.S. App. LEXIS 328, 1804 U.S. LEXIS 245
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedOctober 1, 1804
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 1 Wash. C. C. 186 (Hurst's Case) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hurst's Case, 1 Wash. C. C. 186, 1 L. Ed. 878, 4 U.S. 387, 12 F. Cas. 1019, 4 Dall. 387, 1804 U.S. App. LEXIS 328, 1804 U.S. LEXIS 245 (U.S. 1804).

Opinion

4 U.S. 387 (____)
4 Dall. 387

Hurst's Case.

Supreme Court of United States.

*388 WASHINGTON, Justice.

I will not examine the powers of the Supreme Court of the state, upon the present occasion. It is enough to assertain, that the power of this Court is competent to the object proposed. If, indeed, any injury would be done either to the plaintiff in the suit, or to the sheriff (both of whom have acted innocently, and without knowledge of the facts, on which the claim of privilege arises) by our interposition, we might be induced to pause upon the subject. But, as to the plaintiff, it is clear, that he may renew his execution, whenever the privilege ceases: And, as to the sheriff, the order of a Court of competent jurisdiction, touching the subject matter, must be a conclusive justification in every other Court, acting upon sound principles of law and justice.

To decide the principal question, therefore, I find it necessary to go no further, than to state, that I think the witness was, in *389 this case, privileged, while he was at his lodgings. The subpœna was in force; and the arrest of the witness at that place, has all the effects which could be produced by an arrest in the streets, while coming to, or going from, the Court.

PETERS, Justice.

I concur in the sentiments, that have been expressed by the presiding judge; and add, as my separate opinion, that the party is intitled to be discharged, upon both the grounds of privilege.

A special order of discharge was, accordingly, made, and filed; at the instance of Dallas, who appeared for the sheriff.

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

Related

Style v. MacKey
Second Circuit, 2021
(HC) Allen v. CDCR
E.D. California, 2021
Ryan v. ICE
First Circuit, 2020
Sampson v. Graves
208 A.D. 522 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1924)
First State Bank v. Connoley
109 S.E. 301 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1921)
Wilson v. Cody
8 P.R. Fed. 271 (D. Puerto Rico, 1915)
Dwelle v. Allen
193 F. 546 (S.D. New York, 1912)
Brooks v. State
79 A. 790 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1911)
Hoffman v. Bay Circuit Judge
38 L.R.A. 663 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1897)
Central Trust Co. of New York v. Milwaukee St. Ry. Co.
74 F. 442 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Wisconsin, 1896)
Christian v. Williams
20 S.W. 96 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1892)
In re Healey
53 Vt. 694 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1881)
Domestic & Foreign Missionary Society v. Hinman
13 F. 161 (U.S. Circuit Court, 1881)
Bridges v. Sheldon
7 F. 17 (U.S. Circuit Court, 1880)
Thompson's Case
122 Mass. 428 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1877)
Arenstein v. Weber
21 La. Ann. 199 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1869)
Lewis v. Elmendorf
2 Johns. Cas. 222 (New York Supreme Court, 1801)
Starret's Case
1 U.S. 356 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1788)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 Wash. C. C. 186, 1 L. Ed. 878, 4 U.S. 387, 12 F. Cas. 1019, 4 Dall. 387, 1804 U.S. App. LEXIS 328, 1804 U.S. LEXIS 245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hursts-case-scotus-1804.