Case Name: William Mitchell v. Huron Circuit Judge
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1884-04-30
Citations: 53 Mich. 541
Docket Number: 
Parties: William Mitchell v. Huron Circuit Judge.
Judges: The other Justices concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 53
Pages: 541–542

Head Matter:
William Mitchell v. Huron Circuit Judge.
Summons while outside the jurisdiction — Mandamus.
1. Mandamus lies to set aside the service of a summons if made upon one who at the time is outside of the jurisdiction in which he lives, and is there for the sole purpose of attending as a necessary witness in other cases.
2. Costs are not allowed on issuing mandamus if no intentional wrong on respondent’s part is charged or appears.
Mandamus.
Applied for April 22.
Granted April 30.
T. A. E. Weadock for relator.
Protection from proc.ess extends to all who have relation to another suit that calls for their attendance: Meekins v. Smith 1 H. Bl. 636; while compelled to attend, or present voluntarily: Walpole v. Alexander 3 Doug. 45; Larned v. Griffin 12 Fed. Rep. 590; Dungan v. Miller 8 Vroom. 182; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 436; this immunity extends to parties as well as witnesses; Persons v. Grier 38 Am. Rep. 111: In re Healey id. 711; Nichols v. Horton 14 Fed. Rep. 329; M'Neil's Case 3 Mass. 288; Bridges v. Sheldon 7 Fed. Rep. 36; and is not confined to non-residents: Wetherill v. Seitzinger 1 Miles 237.

Opinion:
Cooley, C. J.
The relator resides at Bay City in the county of Bay. He was a party to two suits pending in the county of Huron, and went to Bad Axe to attend on the trial thereof. He was examined as a witness in one of the causes and the other was continued. He makes oath that he was a necessary witness in the two cases, and attended the court for the sole purpose of giving his evidence. While so in attendance he was served with a summons in another case. He applied to the court on a showing of the facts to set aside the service, but the application was refused. He now 'moves in this Court for a writ of mandamus.
We think the case is within the principle of Watson v. Judge of Superior Court 40 Mich. 729 and that the writ should issue. Public policy, the due administration of justice, and protection to parties and witnesses alike demand it. There would be no question abdut it if the suit had been commenced by arrest; but the reasons for exemption are applicable, though with somewhat less force, in other cases also. The following cases may be referred to for the general reasons: Norris v. Beach 2 Johns. 294; Sanford v. Chase 3 Cow. 381; Dixon v. Ely 4 Edw. Ch. 557; Clark v. Grant 2 Wend. 257; Seaver v. Robinson 3 Duer 622; Person v. Grier 66 N. Y. 124; Matthews v. Tufts 87 N. Y. 568; Hall's Case 1 Tyler 274; In re Healey 53 Vt. 694; Miles v. M'Cullough 1 Binn, 77; Halsey v. Stewart 4 N. J. L. 366; Dungan v. Miller 37 N. J. L. 182; Vincent v. Watson 1 Rich. Law 194; Sadler v. Ray 5 Rich. Law 523; Martin v. Ramsey 7 Humph. 260; Dickenson's Case 3 Harr. (Del.) 517; Henegar v Spangler 29 Ga. 217; May v. Shumway 16 Gray 86; Thompson's Case 122 Mass. 428; Ballinger v. Elliott 72 N. C. 596: Parker v. Hotchkiss Wall. C. C. 269; Juneau Bank v. McSpedan, 5 Biss. 64; Arding v. Flower 8 Term 534; Newton v. Askew 6 Hare 319; Persse v. Persse 5 H L. Cas. 671. See also Matter of Cannon 47 Mich. 481.
The case of Case v. Rorabacher 15 Mich. 537 is different. In that case the party claiming the privilege was attending court within the jurisdiction of his residence.
The writ must issue, but as no intentional wrong is charged or appears it will be without costs.
The other Justices concurred.