Case Name: Irving v. Sutton
Court: United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1809-11
Citations: 1 Cranch 575
Docket Number: 
Parties: Irving v. Sutton.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia (District of Columbia - reported by Mackey)
Volume: 1
Pages: 575–575

Head Matter:
Irving v. Sutton.
Notice of a motion for a dedimus to take depositions in a foreign country may bo given to the attorney at lair.
Mr. N. Herbert, for the defendant,
moved for a commission to take depositions of witnesses residing in England. Notice of the motion had been served on Mr. E. J. Lee, the attorney at law of the plaintiff, who resided in England.
Mr. E. J. Lee objected, that the notice under the Act of Virginia, 29th of November, 1792, § 13, p. 279, ought to be given to the party himself or his attorney in fact, or agent, Buddicum v. Kirk, 3 Craneh, 297.

Opinion:
The Court
was of opinion that notice of the motion may be given to the attorney at law.
The opinion of Marshall, C. J., in Buddicum v. Kirk, is extrajudicial— a mere dictum — and relates to the notice of the time and place of taking the deposition, not to notice of the motion for a commission.