Kinsman v. Reinex
This text of 2 Miles 200 (Kinsman v. Reinex) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The power to discharge suitors and witnesses, is necessarily inherent in every court, and though the court from which the process issues, may discharge, it will not exercise that power, except under special circumstances, as in a case where a [201]*201suitor in another county, comes into this county to attend the taking of a deposition of a witness, under a rule of the court where the suit is pending. Wetherill v. Zeitzinger, 1 Miles 237, But in ordinary cases, the court, on whom the contempt has been committed, is the most suitable forum, and the practice is generally to apply there for redress. United States v. Edme, 9 S. & R. 149. This practice we recognise as being the most convenient, especially where the two courts are in the same county or district, because the court in which the party claims to have been a suitor, at the time of the service of the process, has the best means of judging of the truth of the matter, on which he claims a privilege. This application must be refused.
Rule discharged.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2 Miles 200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kinsman-v-reinex-pactcomplphilad-1838.