Skip to main content
· 4/26/1907

Ex parte Chapman

Citations

  • 153 F. 371
  • 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 5097

Syllabus

<p>Witnesses — Privilege—Books and Papers — Production—Books op Corporation.</p> <p>Petitioner was a stockholder and resident manager of a foreign corporation doing business in Idaho, and conducted on the corporation’s behalf such transactions as it engaged in with reference to the acquisition of timber lands within such state, and the corporation’s hooks, records, and and papers, showing such transactions in petitioner’s possession, won» made by petitioner or under his direction. Held that, if such record® din-closed the commission of a criminal offense by the corporation in the acquisition of such timber lands, they also showed petitioner'll complicity therein, and hence he was properly entitled to refuse to produce such hooks and records before the grand jury, for the purpose of enabling such body to determine whether an offense had been committed, because the production of such books would tend to incriminate him.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, seo Oent. Dig. vol. 50, Witnesses, §§ 1068-1040.]</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • § 210(a) confers jurisdiction; citing Manning v. Notre Dame du Lac, 484 F.2d 501, 503-04 (TECA 1973

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Gilbert

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.