Legal Opinion

Belding-Corticelli Ltd. v. Kaufman

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided May 9, 1935No. M-592PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

DICKINSON, District Judge.

Ignoring the distinction among letters rogatory, commissions dedimus potestatem, and other methods of taking testimony by deposition in advance of a trial in open court, we start with the admitted proposition that a court may, in the absence of legislative enactment, enforce the taking of such testimony. When the deposition is taken within the territorial juris*992diction of the court, it may and usually is taken under a mere rule, and the attendance of the witness is compelled by the issuance of the ordinary subpoena process from the court. When, however, the witness is…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. In re Letters Rogatory from First District Judge of Vera CruzU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1888
  2. In Re Letters Rogatory of Republic of ColombiaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1933

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Janssen v. Belding-Corticelli, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1936

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

Powered by the Exa API