In re Whitlock
New York Supreme Court
At chambers. On motion for an order to produce papers. Bache McB. Whitlock, an attorney and counselor at law, was examined upon commission issued by the high court of justice of England, queen’s bench division, as a witness in an action brought in said court by Charles G. Franeklyn against John Walter and GeorgeE. Wright.
Read the full summary
At chambers. On motion for an order to produce papers. Bache McB. Whitlock, an attorney and counselor at law, was examined upon commission issued by the high court of justice of England, queen’s bench division, as a witness in an action brought in said court by Charles G. Franeklyn against John Walter and GeorgeE. Wright. In the course of his examination he was asked to produce certain letters and writings proceeding from said Francldyn, which he refused to produce, because they had been received by him, in the course of bis professional employment, from one Sir Bache Ounard, for whom he was…
1Opinion of the CourtO’Brien, J.
Mitchell's Case, 12 Abb. Pr. 249, is decisive on this motion. Writings signed and executed by other persons cannot in any way be considered as communications by the client to his attorney, although the client may have delivered the writings to. the attorney. The client, under a subpoena duces tecum, if the papers were in his possession, could be compelled to.produce them; and the fact that he is merely a witness, and not a party, does not change the rule. “If they [i. e., witnesses] must produce books and papers, so miist he [z\ e., the party.]” Mitchell’s Case, Id. “In courts of equity the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Mitchell's CaseNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1861
3Cited by3 opinions
- Edison Electric Light Co. v. United States Electric Lighting Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1890
- LeLong v. SiebrechtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1921
- In re the Estate of KrupNew York Surrogate's Court · 1940