THE UNITED STATES, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE SALINE BANK OF VIRGINIA, JOHN WEBSTER, AND OTHERS, APPELLEES
Mr. Chief Justice MAitsiiALr,
delivered the opinion of the Court.—
This-is a bill in equity fora discovery and relief. The defendants set up a plea in bar, alleging that the discovery would subject them to penalties under the statute of Virginia.
The Court below decided in favour of the validity of the plea, and dismissed the bill.
It is apparent that in every step of the suit,, the. facts required to be discovered in support of this suit would expose the parties to danger. The rule clearly is, that a parly is not bound to make any discovery which would expose him to penalties, and this case falls within it.
The decree of the Court below is therefore affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (22 total)
-
Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (U.S. 1972)…64). See Ullmann v. United States, 350 U. S., at 426; E. Griswold, The Fifth Amendment Today 7 (1955). Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n, supra, at 94 (White, J., concurring); McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U. S. 34, 40 (1924); United States v. Saline Bank, 1 Pet. 100 (1828); cf. Gardner v. Broderick, 392 U. S. 273 (1968). Hoffman v. United States, 341 U. S. 479, 486 (1951); Blau v. United States, 340 U. S. 159 (1950); Mason v. United States, 244 U. S. 362, 365 (1917). See, e. g., Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S.…
-
Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (U.S. 1906)…d under the same sovereignty. Queen v. Boyes, 1 B. & S. 311; King of the Two Sicilies v. Willcox, 7 State Trials (N. S.), 1049, 1068; State v. March, 1 Jones (N. Car.), 526; State v. Thomas, 98 N. Car. 599. The case of United States v. Saline Bank, 1 Pet. 100, is not in conflict with this. That was a bill for discovery, filed by the United States against the cashier of the Saline Bank, in the District Court of the Virginia District, who pleaded that the emission of certain unlawful bills took place, with…
-
Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n of N.Y. Harbor, 378 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1964)…any exception, in every case involving an immunity statute in which the Court has treated the question now before us, it has rejected the present majority’s views. The first of the two exceptional cases is United States v. Saline Bank of Virginia, 1 Pet. 100, decided in 1828; the entire opinion in that case is quoted in the majority opinion, ante, pp. 59-60. It is not clear whether that case has any bearing on the privilege against self-incrimination at all.2 The second case is Ballmann v. Fagin, 200 U.…1 / 5
Previewing 3 of 22 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence