In re Whitlock

New York Supreme Court

In re Whitlock

2 N.Y.S. 683, 15 N.Y. Civ. Proc. R. 204, 1888 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 736

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 18, 1888

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 2 N.Y.S. 683 (In re Whitlock) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Whitlock, 2 N.Y.S. 683, 15 N.Y. Civ. Proc. R. 204, 1888 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 736 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

O’Brien, J.

Mitchell's Case, 12 Abb. Pr. 249, is decisive on this motion. Writings signed and executed by other persons cannot in any way be considered as communications by the client to his attorney, although the client may have delivered the writings to. the attorney. The client, under a subpoena duces tecum, if the papers were in his possession, could be compelled to.produce them; and the fact that he is merely a witness, and not a party, does not change the rule. “If they [i. e., witnesses] must produce books and papers, so miist he [z\ e., the party.]” Mitchell’s Case, Id. “In courts of equity the principle of protection never was extended to all papers belonging to a client which he may have put into the hand of his solicitor. ” Id. The Code only prevents the disclosure of communications “made by his client to him, or his advice thereon.” Letters or communications, written or sent by client to attorney, or by the attorney to client, are privileged, but not writings, documents, etc., of third persons, even though sent by a client to his attorney. Motion requiring the witness to produce and exhibit the papers and writings before the commissioners is granted.

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

O’Brien, J.

Mitchell's Case, 12 Abb. Pr. 249, is decisive on this motion. Writings signed and executed by other persons cannot in any way be considered as communications by the client to his attorney, although the client may have delivered the writings to. the attorney. The client, under a subpoena duces tecum, if the papers were in his possession, could be compelled to.produce them; and the fact that he is merely a witness, and not a party, does not change the rule. “If they [i. e., witnesses] must produce books and papers, so miist he [z\ e., the party.]” Mitchell’s Case, Id. “In courts of equity the principle of protection never was extended to all papers belonging to a client which he may have put into the hand of his solicitor. ” Id. The Code only prevents the disclosure of communications “made by his client to him, or his advice thereon.” Letters or communications, written or sent by client to attorney, or by the attorney to client, are privileged, but not writings, documents, etc., of third persons, even though sent by a client to his attorney. Motion requiring the witness to produce and exhibit the papers and writings before the commissioners is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 N.Y.S. 683, 15 N.Y. Civ. Proc. R. 204, 1888 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 736, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-whitlock-nysupct-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack