TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Merchant Bank v. Grove Silk Co.

MERCHANT BANK OF NEW YORK v. GROVE SILK CO.

Merch. Bank v. Grove Silk Co., 11 F.R.D. 439 (M.D. Penn. 1951)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Federal District Courts
Decided
June 26, 1951
Docket
No. Civ. 3626
Judges
Watson
Citations
11 F.R.D. 4391951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3657

Opinion of the Court — Watson

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

WATSON, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff filed a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum served by the Defendant upon Fabian Roll, Vice President of the Plaintiff Bank, at 434 Broadway, New York City, New York.

Plaintiff contends, inter alia, that the subpoena is of no force and effect as it is not within 100 miles of the place of trial, Scranton, Pennsylvania.

*440 Under Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., a subpoena may be served at a place outside the district provided it is within 100 miles of the place of hearing or trial specified in the subpoena. The distance is to be determined by the ordinary, usual and shortest route of public travel and not by a mathematically straight line between the place of service and the place of trial. Jennings v. Menaugh, C.C.Ind.1902, 118 F. 612 ; Green v. Victor Talking Machine Co., D.C.E.D.N.Y.1926, 15 F.2d 869 . The Court may take judicial notice that a distance between cities named is more than 100 miles. Munson S. S. Lines v. Newman, 5 Cir., 1928, 24 F.2d 417 .

In applying the above method for computing distance, the Court takes judicial notice that New York City, New York, is more than 100 miles distant from Scranton, Pennsylvania, by the usual and shortest route of public travel.

The subpoena, having been served at a place more than 100 miles distant from Scranton, Pennsylvania, it is ordered that Plaintiff’s motion to quash the subpoena, served upon Fabian Roll on June 21, 1951, be, and it hereby is, granted, and the subpoena be, and it hereby is quashed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1956: 11970: 11971: 11977: 11987: 11989: 12020: 119562026peak 1956 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Doe v. McAleenanNo. 3:19-cv-02119 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2020)
  2. Caryl Chessman v. Harley O. Teets, Warden, California State Prison, San Quentin, California239 F.2d 205 (9th Cir. 1956)
  3. Deloro Smelting & Refining Co. v. Engelhard Minerals & Chemicals Corp.313 F. Supp. 470 (D.N.J. 1970)
  4. SCM Corp. v. Xerox Corp.76 F.R.D. 214 (D. Conn. 1977)
  5. Michelman v. Hanil Bank, Ltd. (In re Jee)104 B.R. 289 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1989)
  6. Penntube Plastics Company v. Fluorotex, Inc.336 F. Supp. 698 (D.S.C. 1971)

Most recent

  1. Doe v. McAleenanNo. 3:19-cv-02119 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2020)
  2. Michelman v. Hanil Bank, Ltd. (In re Jee)104 B.R. 289 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1989)
  3. Hill v. Equitable Bank, National Ass'n115 F.R.D. 184 (D. Del. 1987)
  4. SCM Corp. v. Xerox Corp.76 F.R.D. 214 (D. Conn. 1977)
  5. Penntube Plastics Company v. Fluorotex, Inc.336 F. Supp. 698 (D.S.C. 1971)
  6. Deloro Smelting & Refining Co. v. Engelhard Minerals & Chemicals Corp.313 F. Supp. 470 (D.N.J. 1970)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Green v. Victor Talking Mach. Co., 15 F.2d 869 (E.D.N.Y. 1926) 5
Jennings v. Menaugh, 118 F. 612 (1902) 5

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list