Ex parte M'Neil
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Upon the return of a writ of habeas corpus, which issued on the motion of M ’Neil, it appeared that he was party to an action pending in this Court, which had been referred to the decision of the Court upon a case stated; and that he had been taken upon an execution issued against him upon a judgment in a civil action * He moved for his discharge on the ground that he [ * 246 ] was attending the Court, in the necessary care of his action.
Read the full summary
Upon the return of a writ of habeas corpus, which issued on the motion of M ’Neil, it appeared that he was party to an action pending in this Court, which had been referred to the decision of the Court upon a case stated; and that he had been taken upon an execution issued against him upon a judgment in a civil action * He moved for his discharge on the ground that he [ * 246 ] was attending the Court, in the necessary care of his action. It was objected that his attendance on his cause, in the state in which it was, could be of no service, as he could not aid his counsel in the discussion of…
1Opinion of the Court
But the Court said he had a right to be attending, when his action was discussing, and they ordered him to be discharged.
2Cited by11 opinions
- Ginn v. AlmyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1912
- Thompson's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1877
- Chase National Bank v. TurnerNew York Court of Appeals · 1936
- Palmer v. RowanNebraska Supreme Court · 1887
- Lyell v. GoodwinU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Michigan · 1845
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.