Triplett v. Bank of Washington
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia
Upon the venire de novo issued under the mandate, of the supreme court, in this case (see 1 Pet. [2G U. S.] 25), the plaintiffs had given notice to the bank (the defendant,) to produce at the trial the letter-books of the bank, from its institution down to tbe year 1S25. to be used in evidence. objected that the notice was still too general. It does not show that there are any such letters. It is merely to enable the plaintiffs to find possible evidence.
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT (MORSELL, Circuit Judge, absent,
on account of the death of his brother), said that the call was too general, and that the bank ought not to be compelled to produce them unless the plaintiffs should first satisfy the court that they • contained evidence pertinent to the issue; and then thej' could be compelled to produce only such as they show to be pertinent.
•Mr. Neale contended that he had a right to examine them before the trial, to see whether there were not something in them pertinent to the issue. .
But THE COURT said he had no such right. The plaintiffs then gave notice to the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Victor G. Bloede Co. of Baltimore City v. Joseph Bancroft & Sons Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Delaware · 1899
- United States v. National Lead Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey · 1896
- Lucker v. Phoenix Assur. Co. of LondonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of South Carolina · 1895
- Owyhee Land & Irrigation Co. v. TautphausCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1901