Ela v. Ela
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit. Facts found by the court. The defendant pleaded in, abatement that the service of the writ was not legal. He is a resident of Massachusetts and an attorney-at-law. He attended a hearing, as attorney for the petitioner, at a special term of the probate court of Grafton county, upon a petition for the revocation of the appointment of an administrator. He supposed it might be necessary for him to testify in making out the petitioner’s case, but he did not testify.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit. Facts found by the court. The defendant pleaded in, abatement that the service of the writ was not legal. He is a resident of Massachusetts and an attorney-at-law. He attended a hearing, as attorney for the petitioner, at a special term of the probate court of Grafton county, upon a petition for the revocation of the appointment of an administrator. He supposed it might be necessary for him to testify in making out the petitioner’s case, but he did not testify. While he was arguing the case an officer served the writ upon him. A judgment of respondeat ouster was ordered, subject to…
1Opinion of the CourtChase, J.
Parties and their witnesses are privileged from arrest while going to, attending upon, and returning from the trial of an action. A person who procures an arrest in violation of the privilege is guilty of contempt of court; and the action in which the arrest is made is subject to abatement for want of proper service. State v. Buck, 62 N. H. 670; Hubbard v. Sanborn, 2 N. H. 468. The privilege is established to secure “ the free and unrestrained attendance of parties and witnesses,” without which “justice cannot be administered.” Freedom from arrest alone does not answer the purpose in the case…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Person v. . GrierNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
- Matthews v. . TuftsNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
- Parker v. . MarcoNew York Court of Appeals · 1893
- In re HealeySupreme Court of Vermont · 1881
- Mitchell v. Huron Circuit JudgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1884
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Underwood v. FoshaSupreme Court of Kansas · 1906
- Bearman v. HuntSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1918
- Dolber v. YoungSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1923
- Moore v. Conifer Corp.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1988
- State v. BiedlerSuperior Court of Delaware · 1916
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.