Legal Opinion

Ex parte Mallinkrodt

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided March 15, 1855PublishedCited by 15 opinions

Habeas Corpus. From the jailor’s return to a wfit issued by this court, it appeared that the petitioner was in custody under a mittimus issued by a notary public of St. Louis county, for an alleged contempt in not producing certain books and papers in obedience to a subpoena duces tecum issued by the notary, before whom he had been summoned to give his deposition as a witness on behalf of the plaintiffs in a certain cause pending in the St. Louis Circuit Court.

Read the full summary

Habeas Corpus. From the jailor’s return to a wfit issued by this court, it appeared that the petitioner was in custody under a mittimus issued by a notary public of St. Louis county, for an alleged contempt in not producing certain books and papers in obedience to a subpoena duces tecum issued by the notary, before whom he had been summoned to give his deposition as a witness on behalf of the plaintiffs in a certain cause pending in the St. Louis Circuit Court. The mittimus set forth that the petitioner admitted having the books and papers in his possession when the subpoena was served upon…

1Opinion of the Court

Scott, Judge.

The act of 18th February, 1847, empowered notaries to take depositions under the act concerning “ Depositions, ” approved January 17, 1845. The fifteenth section of the act referred to authorized the officer empowered to take depositions, to compel the attendance of witnesses, in the same manner and under the like penalties as any court of record of this state.

The eighth section of the act concerning witnesses provides *494that any person summoned as a witness and attending, who shall refuse to give evidence, which may lawfully be required to he given by such person, may be committed…

2Cited by15 opinions

  1. Langenberg v. DeckerIndiana Supreme Court · 1892
  2. In re SanfordSupreme Court of Missouri · 1911
  3. In re HammondNebraska Supreme Court · 1909
  4. Sayles v. Bradley & Metcalf Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1899
  5. Burnett v. PrinceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1917

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API