Legal Opinion

Haines v. McLaughlin

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California

Decided October 22, 1886PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSawyer, J.

Since the case of Spaulding v. Tucker, 2 Sawy. 50, decided in August, 1871, after careful consideration, and, as was supposed at the time, in accordance with the then existing authorities, the rule has been regarded as settled in this circuit that traveling fees of witnesses coming voluntarily upon the request of a party, without having been subpoenaed, from another district, more than 100 miles from the place,of trial, and beyond the reach of a subpoena, could not be taxed as costs against the losing party. This principle was recognized and adopted by Mr. Justice McLean in Dreskill v.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Spaulding v. TuckerU.S. Circuit Court for the District of California · 1871
  2. Dreskill v. ParishU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Ohio · 1851
  3. Serrell v. CollinsU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1857

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Vincennes Steel Corporation v. MillerCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1938
  2. Hanchett v. HumphreyU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada · 1899
  3. Zelavin v. Tonopah Belmont Development Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1915
  4. United States v. Southern Pac. Co.District Court, S.D. California · 1916
  5. Sloss Iron & Steel Co. v. South Carolina & G. R.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of South Carolina · 1896

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API