Ex parte Priest
Supreme Court of Missouri
Habeas Corpus. At common law, the examination of witnesses was ore terms, and no deposition could be taken, save by consent or through the slow, tedious and expensive process of a bill in chancery. 2 Black. Com., (Cooley Ed.) bk. 3, § 383; 2 Sto. Eq. Jur., (11 Ed.) 389, § 1514; 1 Dan. Ch. Plead. & Prac., (5 Ed.) § 933. As a graft from equity it is to be strictly construed.
Read the full summary
Habeas Corpus. At common law, the examination of witnesses was ore terms, and no deposition could be taken, save by consent or through the slow, tedious and expensive process of a bill in chancery. 2 Black. Com., (Cooley Ed.) bk. 3, § 383; 2 Sto. Eq. Jur., (11 Ed.) 389, § 1514; 1 Dan. Ch. Plead. & Prac., (5 Ed.) § 933. As a graft from equity it is to be strictly construed. Buddicum v. Kirk, 3 Cranch 296; Beal v. Thompson, 8 Cranch 70; Bell v. Morrison, 1 Peters 356; Stevenson v. Myers, 1 Harr. & John. 102 ; Saunders v. Erwin, 2 How. (Miss.) .782; Baxter v. Payne, 1 Pin. (Wis.) 504; Weeks on…
1Opinion of the CourtHenry, J.
The petition alleges that petitioner is restrained of his liberty by Isaac M. Mason, sheriff of the' city of St. Louis, under and by virtue of his commitment by Erancis Vallé, a notary public within said city, duly commissioned, etc., for the refusal of said petitioner to testify in a cause wherein said petitioner is plaintiff and Charles P. Chouteau is defendant, pending in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, said defendant having given due notice that he would take the depositions of witnesses in said cause, before said notary, and said Priest having been duly subpoenaed to appear…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Matthews v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1898
- Wehmeyer v. MulvihillMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910
- State Ex Rel. Westerheide v. ShillingSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1942
- Ex Parte AbbottSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1898
- Tootle v. PayneSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1921
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.