State v. Biedler

Citations

• 29 Del. 262
• 6 Boyce 262
• 99 A. 278
• 1916 Del. LEXIS 36

Syllabus

<p>1. Process—Privilege—Attendance at Court—Grounds.</p> <p>The tendency has been to enlarge the rule that witnesses in judicial proceedings, while going to the place of such proceedings, and while remaining there as long as necessary, and while returning, are wholly free from the restraint of process in other civil proceedings, on the broad ground of public policy and the general administration of the law.</p> <p>2. Process—Privilege—Witnesses—Character of Testimony.</p> <p>On a rule to show cause why leave should not be granted to file an information in the nature of a quo warranto to inquire into respondents’ exercise of the franchises, offices, and privileges of directors of a corporation, where part of the respondents set up their privilege from service of the rule on the ground of their attendance as witnesses in a pending action against the corporation, it was immaterial that they testified therein for the corporation and in support of their title to the office of director, if they acted in good faith and their testimony was material in that action, and if there was nothing to show that they were seeking to establish an unjust or illegal claim, or were guilty of any fraud, collusion, or improper motive, in coming into the state, or in giving their testimony.</p> <p>3. Quo Warranto—Nature of Proceeding.</p> <p>An information in the nature of a quo warranto is not a criminal action, but, though the state is the nominal plaintiff and the Attorney General the relator, is to all intents and purposes a civil action.</p> <p>4. Quo Warranto—Nature of Proceeding—Parties.</p> <p>While the state is the nominal plaintiff in an action in the nature of a quo warranto, and the Attorney General is the relator in actions where individual directors of corporations are seeking to oust others claiming to be entitled to the office, etc., neither the state, nor its representative, is the real party in interest.</p>