RICHTER
v.
UNION TRUST COMPANY & OTHERS

U.S. | 1885-05-04
115 U.S. 55 Supreme Court of the United States (1885) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 29 L. Ed. 345 · 5 S. Ct. 1162 · SCDB 1884-256 · 1885 U.S. LEXIS 1814
Cited by 6 cases
Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice Waite

Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.

This motion is denied. Equity Rule 70 has'ho application to this case, and the affidavits presented do not show such facts as render it necessary for this court to make any special order in tiie premises. Under Rev. Stat. § 866 “ any Circuit Court, upon application to it as a court of equity, may, according to the uses of chancery, direct depositions to be taken in perpetuam rev rnemoriarn, if they relate to any matter that may be cognizable in any court of the United States.” There is nothing in the motion papers to indicate that the appellant may not proceed under this statute to take and perpetuate his testimony, if he has reason to fear that it will otherwise be lost.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Arizona v. California, 292 U.S. 341 (U.S. 1934)
    …hinery Co. v. Electric Storage Battery Co., 170 Fed. 430; reversing 165 Fed. 992; The West Ira, 24 F. (2d) 858; Todd Engineering Co. v. United States, 32 F. (2d) 734; Union Solvents Corp. v. Butacet Corp., 2 F.Supp. 375. Richter v. Union Trust Co., 115 U.S. 55; compare Green v. Compagnia Generale, 82 Fed. 490, 494-5. It is claimed that a future decision as to the meaning of Article III (b) will affect rights also under (a) the Colorado River Compact, (b) the conditions required by the Boulder Canyon Proj…
  • Ætna Life Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Haworth, 84 F.2d 695 (8th Cir. 1936)
    …sires to preserve such testimony, a method has been provided by statute (title 28 U.S.C.A. § 644) which is ample and constitutional. State of Arizona v. California, 292 U.S. 341, 347, 54 S.Ct. 735, 78 L.Ed. 1298; Richter v. Jerome (Union Trust Co.), 115 U.S. 55, 5 S.Ct. 1162, 29 L.Ed. 345. Second, the plaintiff insists that it is injured and its rights are prejudicially affected by reason of the fact that it is required annually to set aside substantial reserves for each of the policies in question until…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw