Michigan Court of Chancery, 1841

Pratt & Barker v. Bank of Windsor

Pratt & Barker v. Bank of Windsor
Michigan Court of Chancery · Decided February 2, 1841
1 Harr. Ch. 254

Counsel

D. Goodwin in support of the motion., T. Romeyn opposed the motion.

Pratt & Barker v. Bank of Windsor

Opinion of the Court

The Chancellor.

This motion must be granted on the authority of the case of Dunn vs. Dunn, 4 Paige, 425. The case is there fully considered, and Chancellor Walworth, after a full examination of all the authorities upon the subject, comes to the conclusion, that the.service of a subpoena out of the state, is irregular.

Motion granted.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.