In re the Examination of Fenton
New York Supreme Court
Application on the return to an order to show canse why an absolute writ of prohibition should not issue restraining C. A. Wieting, State Oommissioner of Agriculture, and his deputy, John H. Grant, from further proceeding with the examination of the witness, Harry Fenton, as provided by section 32 of the Agricultural Law.
1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, J.
On February 21, 1908, O. A. Wieting, the State Oommissioner of Agriculture, issued his subpoena pursuant to section 32 of the State Agricultural Law, requiring the said Harry Fenton to appear and he examined before John H. Grant, an assistant commissioner, in relation to an alleged violation of the Agricultural Law by Dodds Brothers Company, incorporated.
The relator asks for an absolute writ of prohibition on the ground of the alleged unconstitutionality of the statute under which the Oommissioner assumes to act. Before, however, considering the constitutional question raised, the court must…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Matter of DaviesNew York Court of Appeals · 1901
- Bank of Chenango v. . BrownNew York Court of Appeals · 1863
- People Ex Rel. Bender v. . MillikenNew York Court of Appeals · 1906
- People ex rel. MacDonald v. LeubischerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898
- People ex rel. Bender v. MillikenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1906
3Cited by5 opinions
- Royer v. State ex rel. BrownIndiana Court of Appeals · 1916
- State ex rel. Crosby v. MoorheadNebraska Supreme Court · 1916
- State Ex Rel. O'Connor v. District CourtSupreme Court of Iowa · 1935
- Grandview Dairy, Inc. v. BaldwinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1934
- Dunham v. OttingerNew York Supreme Court · 1926