Lessee v. Geyger
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania
A rule has been obtained by tbe plaintiff [Geyger’s lessee], requiring tbe defendant to shew cause why an order should not be made for tbe production of certain deeds and papers on tbe trial of this cause, agreeably to tbe provision of tbe 13th section of tbe judicial act [of 17S9 (1 Stat. 73)], and now, on proof that a copy of the rule was served on tbe defendant’s attorney, it was moved to make tbe same absolute.
Read the full summary
A rule has been obtained by tbe plaintiff [Geyger’s lessee], requiring tbe defendant to shew cause why an order should not be made for tbe production of certain deeds and papers on tbe trial of this cause, agreeably to tbe provision of tbe 13th section of tbe judicial act [of 17S9 (1 Stat. 73)], and now, on proof that a copy of the rule was served on tbe defendant’s attorney, it was moved to make tbe same absolute. But, for tbe defendant, it was contended, that the notice of tbe rule should have been given to the party, and not to bis attorney. In Rivers v. Walker, 1 Dall. [1 U. S.] 81,…
1Opinion of the Court
BY
THE COURT.
Tbe provision contained in tbe judicial act was intended to prevent tbe necessity of instituting suits in equity, merely to obtain from an adverse party tbe production of deeds and papers relative to tbe litigated issue. Tbe act says, generally, that tbe court shall have power, “on motion and due notice thereof being given, to require tbe parties to produce books •or writings, &e.” without designating to whom tbe notice shall be given, tbe party himself, or bis attorney. But we will always keep the cause under our control for tbe purposes of substantial justice, and nev-er suffer…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Gregory v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul R. R.United States Circuit Court · 1882
- Windsor v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2012