DREIER
v.
UNITED STATES; DREIER V. HENKEL, UNITED STATES MARSHAL

U.S. | 1911-05-15
Nos. 358, 359
Mr. Justice McKenna concurs in the result upon the ground of waiver.
221 U.S. 394 Supreme Court of the United States (1911) Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 55 L. Ed. 784 · 31 S. Ct. 550 · 1911 U.S. LEXIS 1741 · SCDB 1910-147
Cited by 92 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

William Dreier, secretary of a New York corporation, was held in contempt for refusing to produce corporate books and papers before a grand jury investigating alleged customs law violations, claiming the contents would incriminate him. The Supreme Court affirmed the contempt judgment, holding that Dreier had no Fifth Amendment privilege to refuse production of corporate documents merely because he held them in his custody, as the privilege against self-incrimination does not extend to corporate records belonging to the corporation rather than to the individual.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mb. Justice Hughes

Mb. Justice Hughes delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff in error and appellant, William Dreier, was subpoenaed to produce before the grand jury in the Circuit Court certain books and papers of the Lichtenstein Millinery Company, a New York corporation, of which he was the secretary.' The grand jury was conducting an inquiry with respect to alleged violations of the customs laws by N. Hayes and others. The subpoena contained the ad testificandum clause, but the only question presented is with respect to the demand for the corporate documents. For his refusal to produce them for the inspection of the grand jury, Dreier was committed for contempt. The first'case (No. 358) is a writ of error to the Circuit Court to review the judgment holding, him to be in contempt and directing his commitment; and the second (No. 359) is an appeal from an order dismissing a writ of habeas corpus. The contention of Dreier in both cases is that the contents of the books and papers would tend to incriminate him and that the proceedings to compel their production were in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

It is urged that if he had a privilege, his conduct was such as to constitute a waiver. But it is not necessary to consider the case in this aspect. Dreier was not entitled to refuse .the production of the corporate records. By virtue of the fact that they were the documents of the corporation in his custody, and not his private papers, he was under obligation to produce them when called for by proper process. Wilson v. United States, decided this day, <mie,'p. 361. In that case the writ was directed to the corporation and here it was addressed to the custodian. As he had no privilege with respect to the corporate books and papers it was his duty to obey.

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice McKenna concurs in the result upon the ground of waiver.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (30 total)

  • Smith v. Lummus, 153 Fla. 415 (Fla. 1943)
    …sin v. J. C. Penney Co., 311 U.S. 435, 61 Sup. Ct. 246, 85 L.Ed. 267, 130 A.L.R. 1229; Curry v. McCanless, 307 U.S. 357, 83 L.Ed. 1339, 59 Sup. Ct. 900, 123 A.L.R. 162; Liverpool & L. & G. Ins. Co. v. Board of Assessors, 221 U.S. 346, 55 L. Ed. 762, 31 Sup. Ct. 550. Affirmed. BUFORD, C. J., BROWN and SEBRING, JJ., concur. TERRELL, THOMAS and ADAMS, JJ., dissent.…
  • State v. Wellington Precious Metals, Inc., 510 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 1987)
    …espite the fact that producing the documents tacitly admits their existence and their locar tion in the hands of their possessor. E.g., Wilson v. United States, 221 U.S. 361 [31 S.Ct. 538, 55 L.Ed. 771] (1911); Dreier v. United States, 221 U.S. 394 [31 S.Ct. 550, 55 L.Ed. 784] (1911); United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694 [64 S.Ct. 1248, 88 L.Ed. 1542] (1944); Beilis v. United States, 417 U.S. 85 [94 S.Ct. 2179, 40 L.Ed.2d 678] (1974); In re Harris, supra [221 U.S. 274, 31 S.Ct. 557, 55 L.Ed. 73 (1911)]. Id…
  • Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (U.S. 1976)
    …nts will incriminate the custodian despite the fact that producing the documents tacitly admits their existence and their location in the [*412] hands of their possessor. E. g., Wilson v. United States, 221 U. S. 361 (1911); Dreier v. United States, 221 U. S. 394 (1911); United States v. White, 322 U. S. 694 (1944); Bellis v. United States, 417 U. S. 85 (1974); In re Harris, supra. The existence and possession or control of the subpoenaed documents being no more in issue here than in the above cases, the sum…

Previewing 3 of 30 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw