Ex parte Mallinkrodt
Cases that cite this one
15 later published cases cite this decision.
- Ex Parte Dillon v. Smedley (Mo. Ct. App. 1930)
- Langenberg v. Decker (Ind. 1892)
- Venker v. Hyler (Mo. 1962)
- Hollingsworth v. SEARS, ROEBUCK & COMPANY (Tex. App. 1955)
- State ex rel. Stroh v. Klene (Mo. 1918)
- Burnett v. Prince (Mo. 1917)
- State ex rel. McCulloch v. Taylor (Mo. 1916)
- In re Sanford (Mo. 1911)
- In re Hammond (Neb. 1909)
- In re Butler (Neb. 1906)
- Ex parte Lucas (Mo. 1901)
- Sayles v. Bradley & Metcalf Co. (Tex. 1899)
- Courtnay v. Knox (Neb. 1891)
- In re Beardsley (Kan. 1887)
- Burtt v. Pyle (Ind. 1883)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The act of 18th February, 1847, empowered notaries to take depositions under the act concerning “ Depositions, ” approved January 17, 1845. The fifteenth section of the act referred to authorized the officer empowered to take depositions, to compel the attendance of witnesses, in the same manner and under the like penalties as any court of record of this state.
The eighth section of the act concerning witnesses provides
The power of notaries, in taking depositions, is strictly statutory. They can do nothing not expressly authorized and under the circumstances which authorize it. There is no power given to an officer taking depositions to commit a witness for refusing to produce books. Powers in derogation of the liberty of the citizen must be strictly construed.
Let the prisoner be discharged, the other judges concurring.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.