Immunity From Service Of Process

1. The general ascendancy that witnesses, suitors, and their attorneys, while in attendance in connection via the conduct of one suit, are immune from business of procedure in an additional, is founded not upon the convenience of the people, however upon that of the court. P. 285 U. S. 225.

You watching: Immunity from service of process

2. The privilege need to not be enlarged past the reason upon which it is started, and have to be extended or withorganized as judicial necessities need. Id.

3. A nonresident attorney, attending the federal court as counsel for a defendant in a suit over property, is not exempt from service under a supplepsychological bill the purpose of which is to require him to reclaim to the court, in order that it might be based on a decree in the major suit favorable to the plaintiff, a component of the fund in debate which was transferred to him by his client while the primary suit was pfinishing. P. 285 U. S. 226.

Page 285 U. S. 223

4. The question of immunity s to be established by the nature of the proceeding in which service on the attorney is made, and also its relation to the principal suit, as disclosed by the pleadings. P. 285 U. S. 228.

48 F.2d 533 affirmed.

Certiorari, 284 UNITED STATE 609, to review a decree reversing an order quashing company of a subpoena to answer a supplepsychological bill.

Page 285 U. S. 224


UNITED STATE kaupunkiopas.com Court

Lamb v. Schmitt, 285 UNITED STATE 222 (1932)

Lamb v. Schmitt

No. 433

Argued February 1, 1932

Decided March 14, 1932

285 UNITED STATE 222

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Syllabus

1. The basic dominance that witnesses, suitors, and their attorneys, while in attendance in connection via the conduct of one suit, are immune from company of process in an additional, is established not upon the convenience of the people, yet upon that of the court. P. 285 U. S. 225.

2. The privilege have to not be enlarged beyond the factor upon which it is founded, and also have to be extfinished or withorganized as judicial necessities call for. Id.

3. A nonresident attorney, attending the federal court as counsel for a defendant in a suit over residential property, is not exempt from company under a supplemental bill the objective of which is to call for him to regain to the court, in order that it may be subjected to a decree in the primary suit favorable to the plaintiff, a part of the money in conflict which was transferred to him by his client while the main suit was pfinishing. P. 285 U. S. 226.

Page 285 U. S. 223

4. The question of immunity s to be established by the nature of the proceeding in which organization on the attorney is made, and its relation to the primary suit, as disclosed by the pleadings. P. 285 U. S. 228.

48 F.2d 533 affirmed.

Certiorari, 284 UNITED STATE 609, to testimonial a decree reversing an order quashing company of a subpoena to answer a supplepsychological bill.

Page 285 U. S. 224

MR. JUSTICE STONE delivered the opinion of the Court.

See more: nature scavenger hunt for kids

This instance is below on certiorari to evaluation a decree of the Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, 48 F.2d 533, reversing an order of the District Court for Northern Mississippi which quamelted company of process upon the petitioner, Lamb. The suit is a companion to Lamb v. Cramer, ante, p. 285 U. S. 217, and also, like it, is ancillary to the principal suit referred to in that situation, which was carried to collection aside conveyances of land and also dispositions of money and individual property as in fraud of judgment creditors.

The present suit was brought by the respondent right here, the receiver appointed by the decree in the first one. It seeks the recoextremely of a component of the funds connected in the first suit, passist, pendente lite, as fees to Lamb, that acted as attorney of one of the defendants in that suit. The petitioner, a resident of Illinois, was offered via procedure while he remained in the Northern District of Mississippi in attendance on the court as an attorney in the primary suit. The sole question presented is whether the court listed below rightly held that the petitioner, in the situations stated, was not immune from company of process.

Page 285 U. S. 225

The basic ascendancy that witnesses, suitors, and also their attorneys, while in attendance in link with the conduct of one suit, are immune from organization of procedure in another is founded not upon the convenience of the individuals, yet of the court itself. Page Co. v. Macdonald, 261 U. S. 446; Stewart v. Ramsay, 242 U. S. 128, 242 U. S. 130; Hale v. Wharton, 73 F. 739; Diamond v. Earle, 217 Mass. 499, 501, 105 N.E. 363; Parker v. Marco, 136 N.Y. 585, 32 N.E. 989. As typically stated and also used, it proceeds upon the ground that the due management of justice requires that a court shall not permit interference through the progress of a cause pfinishing before it by the business of process in various other suits which would prevent, or the fear of which could tfinish to discourage, the voluntary attendance of those whose existence is vital or convenient to the judicial management in the pending litigation. See Bridges v. Sheldon, 7 F. 17, 43 et seq. In Stewart v. Ramsay, the Court said at p. 242 U. S. 130, quoting from Parker v. Hotchkiss, Fed.Cas. No. 10,739:

"The privilege which is asserted right here is the privilege of the court, fairly than of the defendant. It is started in the necessities of the judicial management, which would be frequently embarrassed, and also sometimes interrupted, if the suitor might be vexed with procedure while attfinishing upon the court for the security of his rights, or the witness while attfinishing to testify."

It follows that the privilege need to not be enlarged beyond the factor upon which it is established, and also that it must be extfinished or withheld just as judicial necessities call for. See Brooks v. State, 3 Boyce 1, 79 A. 790; Netograph Co. v. Scrugham, 197 N.Y. 377, 90 N.E. 962; Nichols v. Horton, 14 F. 327; Iron Dyke Copper Min. Co. v. Iron Dyke R. Co., 132 F. 208. Limitations of it on this basis have actually been not intypically made because the attendance upon the trial of a

Page 285 U. S. 226

reason, yet essential to the personal interests of those pertained to, was not for the purpose of facilitating the progress of the cause, check out Brooks v. State, supra; Vaughn v. Boyd, 142 Ga. 230, 82 S.E. 576; Sampkid v. Graves, 208 App.Div. 522, 526, 203 N.Y.S. 729; or bereason the company was made on one whose attendance was not voluntary, and also for this reason had actually no tendency to interfere via judicial management, Netograph Mfg. Co. v. Scrugham, supra.

The question presented right here is of a somewhat different character: whether, despite any type of effect of the immunity in encouraging voluntary attendance at the trial, it must be withheld from one who, while in attendance, is offered through procedure commanding his continued visibility and also aid to facilitate the pending litigation, and to bring it to its final conclusion?

It has actually never been doubted that witnesses, parties, and also their counsel are amallow to the procedure or order of the court for contempt of court, committed while in attendance upon the trial, or that any type of of them, while tbelow, are subject to the process and also orders of the court to compel the production of files or their testimony in the reason. Nor deserve to it be doubted that the petitioner below, notwithstanding his visibility as an attorney and also officer of the court in the conduct of the principal cause, was not immune from the service of process in a summary proceeding to compel restoration of the topic matter of the suit wrongtotally removed from the custody of the court. See Lamb v. Cramer, supra. The deterrent result, if any, upon attendance at the trial, of the possibility that these measures might be resorted to, is outweighed by the reality that the immunity, if allowed, might paralyze the arm of the court and also defeat the ends of justice in the exceptionally cause for the defense of which the immunity is invoked.

Page 285 U. S. 227

These considerations have, in distinct circumstances, caused a denial of the immunity even though the business was made in an independent suit in no feeling ancillary to the pending litigation. See Livenexcellent v. Ball, 63 Okl. 93, 162 P. 768; Rizo v. Burruel, 23 Ariz. 137, 202 P. 234. But it is not important to go so far in the current situation. Here, the 2 suits, pending in the very same court, are not independent of each, other or unconnected. The second was carried in help of the first, on which the petitioner, as soon as offered via procedure, was in attendance, charged with the duty of counsel in the situation to aid the court. It was lugged to secure civil liberties asserted in the first suit which, however for the acts charged against the petitioner in the second, would have been secured in the initially. Cf. Page Co. v. Macdonald, supra. The later suit was so a lot a component and also continuation of the previously one that the jurisdiction of the court over the initially extended to the second without regard to citizenship of the parties or the satisfactivity of any kind of various other jurisdictional requirements. Pacific Railroad of Missouri v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co., 111 U. S. 505, 111 U. S. 522.

From the viewpoint of the due administration of justice in the first suit, the second was as much a part of it as if it had been an interlocutory motion to compel the production in court of documents or of residential or commercial property affiliated in the suit. The situation is therefore not one where the reason pfinishing before the court is based on feasible hindrance or delay by organization of process in some unassociated suit. The assist of the petitioner already in attendance upon the litigation was demanded in order that the relief prayed could be secured, and the cause brought to a final and successful termicountry. Neither that demand also nor compliance with it can prevent his attendance upon the major cause, as company of process in an additional court might. Even if we make the presumption that the nonrecognition of such immunity might have actually discouraged

Page 285 U. S. 228

petitioner"s participation as counsel, still it would defeat, not help, the management of justice in the primary cause to encourage petitioner"s voluntary existence by the provide of an immunity which would certainly relieve him from any type of compulsion either to continue his presence or to answer for his acts affecting the progression of the cause. Judicial necessities call for that such immunity have to be withorganized, and it was rightly denied by the court listed below.

It is shelp that the company of procedure in this instance cannot be understood an exception to the basic dominion without assuming the reality of the allegations in the bill of complaint, and also that the reality or falsity of the pleadings cannot be assumed. See Page v. Macdonald, supra, pp. 261 U. S. 448-449. But the test of the privilege is not the probable success or faitempt of the suit or proceeding in which the process was offered. If it were, the immunity could never be denied. The test is whether the immunity itself, if enabled, would so obstruct judicial administration in the exceptionally reason for the defense of which it is invoked regarding justify withholding it. That, as we have actually said, counts below upon the nature of the proceeding in which the organization is made, and its relation to the primary suit, both of which are disclosed by the pleadings.

Affirmed.


Disclaimer: Official kaupunkiopas.com Court instance regulation is just found in the print version of the USA Reports. kaupunkiopas.com situation legislation is provided for basic informational objectives just, and may not reflect existing legal advancements, verdicts or negotiations. We make no warranties or assures about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the indevelopment included on this site or information linked to from this website. Please check main sources.

kaupunkiopas.com Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, discuss, and analyze situation law publimelted on our website. kaupunkiopas.com makes no assures or warranties that the annotations are exact or reflect the existing state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be taken as, legal advice. Contacting kaupunkiopas.com or any kind of attorney via this site, via web develop, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client partnership.