Kinney v. Emery
New Jersey Court of Chancery
Motion to quash subpcena ad respondendum
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The subpoena to answer was made returnable on the 30th of May, which is one of the legal holidays on which it is provided *341bylaw, “no court shall be held except iu the cases where,” at the passage of the act, “ it would sit on the first day of the week.” Rev. p. 481. The defendants now move to quash the writ on the ground that it was returnable on that day. No action of any kind is required of a defendant in a subpoena on the return-day of the writ. He is not required to appear or enter an appearance then. On the contrary, he is informed by the note at the bottom *342of the writ…
2Cases cited60 opinions
- Commercial Mutual Marine Insurance v. Union Mutual Insurance Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1857
- State v. GreenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
- Sayles v. SmithNew York Supreme Court · 1834
- Hosley v. . BlackNew York Court of Appeals · 1863
- School District No. 4 v. GageMichigan Supreme Court · 1878
55 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Lintott v. McCluskeyNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1929