William O. Douglas

Name: Rorick v. Devon Syndicate — Opinion of the Court
Author: William O. Douglas

Rorick v. Devon Syndicate — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“Rorick v. Devon Syndicate — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by William O. Douglas. It explores elements such as garnishment, attachment and affidavit.

Quotes from Rorick v. Devon Syndicate — Opinion of the Court (William O. Douglas)

William O. Douglas, Rorick v. Devon Syndicate — Opinion of the Court

“ Since Drennan was not a 'relative or attorney' of petitioner, he was not disqualified to take the affidavit unless within the meaning of the Ohio statute he was 'otherwise interested in the event of the action or proceeding.' The District Court held that he was so interested. We do not so interpret the Ohio law. Absent some legal or material interest, it seems to us, on the basis of the Ohio authorities which we have found, that there must be some immediate interest in the action akin to that of a relative in order for the notary to run afoul of the statutory prohibition. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William O. Douglas, Rorick v. Devon Syndicate — Opinion of the Court

“ Certainly, if an employee of one who himself is disqualified to act as notary is qualified so to act, an employee of a corporation whose officer is suing not on behalf of the corporation but for himself would seem to be similarly qualified under Ohio law. This seems to us especially persuasive, since the notary in question was in fact taking not a deposition but an affidavit and since the affidavit was not for use as evidence. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William O. Douglas, Rorick v. Devon Syndicate — Opinion of the Court

“ So to a considerable degree, this Court in pursuance of the policy of the Congress as expressed in Sec. 646, has not adhered rigorously to the philosophy underlying the antecedents of the Big Vein Coal Company case. For most assuredly a defendant whose property is attached in a state court prior to removal may not have been given notice of the kind which personal service would provide, since the state procedure as in this case commonly permits attachment or garnishment where only service by publication can be made. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William O. Douglas, Rorick v. Devon Syndicate — Opinion of the Court

“ After oral argument on respondent's motions, the District Court entered an order discharging the attachment and garnishment and striking the petition from the files of the court, on the grounds that the affidavits in attachment and garnishment, dated June 19 and June 27, 1930, were defective and void, and that the supplemental affidavit in attachment and garnishment was also void and ineffective, since no personal service had been made on respondent. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William O. Douglas, Rorick v. Devon Syndicate — Opinion of the Court

“ Pittsburgh Co., 15 Ohio Cir.Ct.,N.S., 286, an Ohio court held that a young man working as a salaried employee for a firm of attorneys retained in the case was not disqualified by the foregoing section from taking an affidavit in the case as notary. The interest which disqualifies under the Ohio statute, said that Court, is 'some legal, certain and immediate interest such as formerly disqualified a witness from testifying.' Id., 15 Ohio Cir.Ct.,N.S., page 286. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William O. Douglas, Rorick v. Devon Syndicate — Opinion of the Court

“ Ingrained in those decisions is the feeling that it would be unjust for a person to have his rights passed upon in the absence of the notice afforded by personal service, so that he might appear and defend himself. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William O. Douglas, Rorick v. Devon Syndicate — Opinion of the Court

“ But he did not represent petitioner in this case; nor had he ever represented him as personal counsel; nor was he consulted by petitioner with reference to this case; nor was he related to petitioner; nor did he have any financial stake in the outcome of this suit. His sole connection with the case was that he acted as notary on a few papers. Furthermore, the petition in this case alleged a cause of action personal to petitioner, not one on behalf of the corporation by which Drennan was employed or on behalf of its predecessor partnership. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

William O. Douglas, Rorick v. Devon Syndicate — Opinion of the Court

“ Although Drennan had some private practice of his own, he was in the employ of a corporation, of which petitioner was president, and previously in the employ of a predecessor partnership, of which petitioner was a member. ”

William O. Douglas

Summary

Quotes from Rorick v. Devon Syndicate — Opinion of the Court (William O. Douglas)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature