Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/60

 iS TBDEBAIi BEPOBTEB. �dated July 12, 1877, for $2,500, on account of a loss stis- tained under a named policy. Said bill went to protest. Subsequently, in 1877, successive payments thereon were made to the amount of $1,700, and this suit was instituted September, 1879, in the state court, for the balance due. The defendant filed a general deniai, and caused the suit to be removed to this court, January, 1880. In the course of subsequent proeeedings the plaintiffs, by their attorney, gave the following notice to take depositions : �R. S. EasEBT et al. m. The Citizbns' Ins. Co. of Misboubl {In the United States Circuit Court, Eastem District of Missouri.) �To the above-named defendant or O. B. Sansum, attomey of record; �Tou are hereby notifled that depositions of George W. Scott, C. D. Farnsworth, J. P. Clark, and E. Potter, witnesses, to be read in the above- entitled cause, on the part of plaintiS, •will be taken at the office of Samuel P. Murphy, notary public and commissioner, No. 607 Montgomery Street, in the city of San Francisco, state of California, on the fourteenth day of February, 1881, between the hours of 8 o'clock in the forenoon and 6 o'clock in the af temoon of that day ; and that the taking of said depo- sitions, if not completed on that day, will be continued from day to day, at the same place ttnd between the same hours, until completed. �Edw. F. Pahish, Attomey for Plaintiffs. �Service of the above notice is hereby acknowledged. St. Louis, Jan- uary 26, 1881. �O. B. Basbum, Attomey for Defendants. �Under this notice depositions were taken and returned to this court. A motion has been filed to suppress those depo- sitions on several grounds, and numerous authorities cited in support of the motion, most of which pertain to ex parte depositions under the actof 1789, and are deemed inapplica- ble to depositions taken under notice pursuant to the act of 1872. When an ex parte course was pursued under the foriner act, the courts insisted upon a rigid compliance with all its requirements, inasmuch as such proeeedings were in derogation of the common law, and might be had without notice to the adverse party, or his attorney, under cjrcum- stances indicated therein. If a party chose to pursue that course, the supreme court of the United States, in 1851, (Walsh V. Rogers, 13 How. 283,) said: "Testimony thus obtained must alwaya be unsatisfactory and liable to sus- ��� �