Supreme Court of the United States, 1911

Dreier v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided May 15, 1911 · Hughes, McKenna

221 U.S. 394; 31 S. Ct. 550; 55 L. Ed. 784; 1911 U.S. LEXIS 1741 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. W. Wickham Smith, with whom Mr. John K. Maxwell was on the brief, for plaintiff in error and appellant:-, The Solicitor Generalj with whom The Attorney General, Mr. Wm. S. Kenyon, Assistant to the Attorney General, and Mr. O. E. Harrison, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, were on the brief, for the United States:

Cases that cite this one

67 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

In re Sealed Case (D.C. Cir. 1989)
Braswell v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1988)
No. 92-4129 (11th Cir. 1992)
In re Grand Jury Subpoena Dated November 12, 1991 (11th Cir. 1992)
In re Russo (Tex. App. 2018)
Matter of Grand Jury Proceedings of Guarino (N.J. 1986)
United States v. Robert R. Hutchings (8th Cir. 1985)
In re Grand Jury Matter. Appeal of James Gilbert Brown (3d Cir. 1985)
State Ex Rel. Jay Bee Stores, Inc. v. Edwards (Mo. 1982)
Woods v. Dunlop (Pa. 1975)
The Communist Party of the United States of America v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1967)
Attorney v. Attorney Grievance Commission (Md. 1998)
In re Sealed Case (D.C. Cir. 1987)
United States of America and Donald M. Cerra, Special Agent of the Internal Revenue Service v. John L. Beattie, Jr. (2d Cir. 1975)
City of San Jose v. MediMarts, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)
Amato v. United States (1st Cir. 2006)
American Express Business Finance Corp. v. RW Professional Leasing Services Corp. (District Court, E.D. New York 2002)
United States v. John Doe 1 (2d Cir. 1999)
Mayor of Baltimore v. One 1995 Corvette Vin No. 1G1YY22P585103433 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1998)
In re Grand Jury Subpoena Dated April 9, 1996 (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 1996)
Trustees of the Plumbers & Pipefitters National Pension Fund v. Transworld Mechanical, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 1995)
In re Ross (United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Idaho 1993)
Volmar Distributors, Inc. v. New York Post Co., Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 1993)
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (2d Cir. 1992)
In re Grand Jury Subpoena Dated November 12, 1991 (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 1992)

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

Mb. Justice Hughes

delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff in error and appellant, William Dreier, was subpoenaed to produce before the grand jury in the Circuit Court certain books and papers of the Lichtenstein Millinery Company, a New York corporation, of which he was the secretary.' The grand jury was conducting an inquiry with respect to alleged violations of the customs laws by N. Hayes and others. The subpoena contained the ad testificandum clause, but the only question presented is with respect to the demand for the corporate documents. For his refusal to produce them for the inspection of the grand jury, Dreier was committed for contempt. The first'case (No. 358) is a writ of error to the Circuit Court to review the judgment holding, him to be in contempt and directing his commitment; and the second (No. 359) is an appeal from an order dismissing a writ of habeas corpus. The contention of Dreier in both cases is *400 that the contents of the books and papers would tend to incriminate him and that the proceedings to compel their production were in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

It is urged that if he had a privilege, his conduct was such as to constitute a waiver. But it is not necessary to consider the case in this aspect. Dreier was not entitled to refuse .the production of the corporate records. By virtue of the fact that they were the documents of the corporation in his custody, and not his private papers, he was under obligation to produce them when called for by proper process. Wilson v. United States, decided this day, <mie,'p. 361. In that case the writ was directed to the corporation and here it was addressed to the custodian. As he had no privilege with respect to the corporate books and papers it was his duty to obey.

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice McKenna concurs in the result upon the ground of waiver.

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