Legal Opinion

Riewold v. Riewold

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided November 18, 1936PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

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…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Parker v. . MarcoNew York Court of Appeals · 1893
  2. Burroughs v. Cocke & WillisSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
  3. Brown v. BrownNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1933

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Grober v. KahnNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1962
  2. Randall v. RandallNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1951
  3. In Re Subpoena Duces Tecum Inst. Manage. Corp.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1975
  4. Younger v. YoungerNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1949
  5. Chambliss v. HaeberleDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1940

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

Powered by the Exa API