Lamb v. Schmitt,
285 U.S. 222 (1932)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Lamb v. Schmitt, 285 U.S. 222 (1932)

Lamb v. Schmitt

No. 433

Argued February 1, 1932

Decided March 14, 1932

285 U.S. 222


1. The general rule that witnesses, suitors, and their attorneys, while in attendance in connection with the conduct of one suit, are immune from service of process in another, is founded not upon the convenience of the individuals, but upon that of the court. P. 285 U. S. 225.

2. The privilege should not be enlarged beyond the reason upon which it is founded, and should be extended or withheld as judicial necessities require. Id.

3. A nonresident attorney, attending the federal court as counsel for a defendant in a suit over property, is not exempt from service under a supplemental bill the purpose of which is to require him to restore to the court, in order that it may be subjected to a decree in the main suit favorable to the plaintiff, a part of the fund in controversy which was transferred to him by his client while the main suit was pending. P. 285 U. S. 226.

Page 285 U. S. 223

4. The question of immunity s to be determined by the nature of the proceeding in which service on the attorney is made, and its relation to the principal suit, as disclosed by the pleadings. P. 285 U. S. 228.

48 F.2d 533 affirmed.

Certiorari, 284 U.S. 609, to review a decree reversing an order quashing service of a subpoena to answer a supplemental bill.

Page 285 U. S. 224

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.