Riewold v. Riewold

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Riewold v. Riewold

188 A. 72, 121 N.J. Eq. 134, 20 Backes 134, 1936 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 15

CourtNew Jersey Court of Chancery

DecidedNovember 18, 1936

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 188 A. 72 (Riewold v. Riewold) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Riewold v. Riewold, 188 A. 72, 121 N.J. Eq. 134, 20 Backes 134, 1936 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 15 (N.J. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant appears specially by leave of the court and moves to set aside service of the subpoena to answer. He is a resident of Connecticut, and he is also the petitioner in a suit for divorce pending in one of the courts of the State of Virginia. While attending before a notary public at Newark in this state, to give testimony in the Virginia cause, he was served with the subpoena.

Generally, a non-resident party or witness is exempt from the service of process while attending court. Halsey v. Stewart,4 N.J. Law 366; Massey v. Colville, 45 N.J. Law 119; Brown v.Brown, 112 N.J. Eq. 600. The privilege protects one who appears before a master, Miller v. Dungan, 37 N.J. Law 182, or before a supreme court commissioner to give testimony to be used on the trial or on a side motion. Mulhearn v. Publishing Co.,53 N.J. Law 153. Complainant argues that a party or witness enjoys the privilege only when the cause, in which he is interested, pends in a court of this state. It is true, I believe, that none of our reported cases deals with the situation where the one who claims protection *Page 135 is concerned in litigation in a sister state, but nothing contained in any of these decisions tends to exclude such a case. The reason for the rule was stated by Mr. Justice Southard in the first case which I have cited: "Courts of justice ought, everywhere, to be open, accessible, free from interruption, and to cast a perfect protection around every man who necessarily approaches them. The citizen, in every claim of right which he exhibits, and every defense which he is obliged to make, should be permitted to approach them, not only without subjecting himself to evil, but even free from the fear of molestation or hindrance." Comity requires us to lend such protection to suitors in the courts of other states as we give to our own, in order that justice may be unhampered. And so it has been held elsewhere. Larned v. Griffin, 12 Fed. Rep. 592; Hogue v.Dudley, 137 Ark. 616; 208 S.W. Rep. 582; Parker v. Marco,136 N.Y. 585; 32 N.E. Rep. 989; Burroughs v. Cocke, 56 Okla. 627;156 Pac. Rep. 196; L.R.A. 1916E 1170.

Service of the subpoena will be set aside.

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

Defendant appears specially by leave of the court and moves to set aside service of the subpoena to answer. He is a resident of Connecticut, and he is also the petitioner in a suit for divorce pending in one of the courts of the State of Virginia. While attending before a notary public at Newark in this state, to give testimony in the Virginia cause, he was served with the subpoena.

Generally, a non-resident party or witness is exempt from the service of process while attending court. Halsey v. Stewart,4 N.J. Law 366; Massey v. Colville, 45 N.J. Law 119; Brown v.Brown, 112 N.J. Eq. 600. The privilege protects one who appears before a master, Miller v. Dungan, 37 N.J. Law 182, or before a supreme court commissioner to give testimony to be used on the trial or on a side motion. Mulhearn v. Publishing Co.,53 N.J. Law 153. Complainant argues that a party or witness enjoys the privilege only when the cause, in which he is interested, pends in a court of this state. It is true, I believe, that none of our reported cases deals with the situation where the one who claims protection *Page 135 is concerned in litigation in a sister state, but nothing contained in any of these decisions tends to exclude such a case. The reason for the rule was stated by Mr. Justice Southard in the first case which I have cited: "Courts of justice ought, everywhere, to be open, accessible, free from interruption, and to cast a perfect protection around every man who necessarily approaches them. The citizen, in every claim of right which he exhibits, and every defense which he is obliged to make, should be permitted to approach them, not only without subjecting himself to evil, but even free from the fear of molestation or hindrance." Comity requires us to lend such protection to suitors in the courts of other states as we give to our own, in order that justice may be unhampered. And so it has been held elsewhere. Larned v. Griffin, 12 Fed. Rep. 592; Hogue v.Dudley, 137 Ark. 616; 208 S.W. Rep. 582; Parker v. Marco,136 N.Y. 585; 32 N.E. Rep. 989; Burroughs v. Cocke, 56 Okla. 627;156 Pac. Rep. 196; L.R.A. 1916E 1170.

Service of the subpoena will be set aside.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 A. 72, 121 N.J. Eq. 134, 20 Backes 134, 1936 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 15, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riewold-v-riewold-njch-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack