Case Name: In re WOODWARD et al.
Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1870-03
Citations: 30 F. Cas. 541
Docket Number: 
Parties: In re WOODWARD et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Cases
Volume: 30
Pages: 541–542

Head Matter:
Case No. 17,999.
In re WOODWARD et al.
[4 Ben. 102; 3 N. B. R. 719 (Quarto, 177).]
District Court, E. D. New York.
March, 1870.
Privilege op Counsel—Witness.
A witness who claims to have acted as counsel for a bankrupt, cannot, on that ground, refuse to be sworn as a witness in the bankruptcy ! proceedings.
[In the matter of George Woodward and Julius C. Woodward, bankrupts.]
In this case, the assignee for the bankrupt, by his counsel, attended before the register, and one William MeKeag attended as a witness, but refused to be sworn, on the ground that he had acted as counsel for the bankrupt, and was still his adviser.
The register decided as- follows: “The right to refuse to answer a vquestion on the ground of privilege, does not warrant a refusal to be sworn as a witness. The privilege cannot be interposed until a question is asked which invades the privilege.”
On request the register certified the question to the court.

Opinion:
BLATCHFORD, District Judge.
The decision of the register is correct.