In re Donald & Healy for Process of Subpœna

94 A. 580, 87 N.J.L. 691, 1915 N.J. LEXIS 272
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedJune 14, 1915
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 94 A. 580 (In re Donald & Healy for Process of Subpœna) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Donald & Healy for Process of Subpœna, 94 A. 580, 87 N.J.L. 691, 1915 N.J. LEXIS 272 (N.J. 1915).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

On application under the statute Mr. Justice Garrison made an order Cor a subpoena duces tecum in an action pending in Oregon. Subsequently, by consent of counsel, a motion to quasli this order was made before him, sitting as the Supreme Court. He denied the motion and this appeal was taken. The procedure followed was that adopted In re Edison, 68 N. J. L. 494. Obviously, this appeal is an attempt to review .the action of the Supreme Court with reference to its own process. Such action is not appealable. Coryell v. Holcombe, 9 N. J. Eq. 650; Doland’s Case, 69 Id. 802. Whether or not the case could be brought to this court in case the Supreme Court should award a certiorari to review the original order as one made by the justice only as a person designated by the statute, as in the case of the appointment of commissioners to condemn land, is a question we are not now called upon to decide. The appeal is dismissed, with costs.

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

Related

In Re Saperstein
104 A.2d 842 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1954)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
94 A. 580, 87 N.J.L. 691, 1915 N.J. LEXIS 272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-donald-healy-for-process-of-subpna-nj-1915.