Bevan v. Krieger

Background

A widow and sole legatee, Clara Sielcken-Schwarz, sued a corporation and several officers to challenge an alleged fraud that led her husband’s executor to part with corporate stock. She sought depositions of three men; two did not appear, and one, an officer named Bevan, appeared but refused to answer some questions and to produce requested documents. A notary taking the depositions issued a commitment for contempt against Bevan and attachment warrants for the others, and the men surrendered and sought habeas relief after arrest.

Reasoning

The central issue was whether Ohio statutes allowing an officer taking a deposition (including a notary) to commit a witness for refusing to answer or to produce documents violates constitutional fairness (due process) when there is no prior judicial hearing. The Court found that the two who did not appear could not claim denial of a hearing because they surrendered and asked for none. Bevan’s broad refusal—declaring he would answer no more—on its face amounted to contempt and justified commitment. The Court also rejected the claim that a notary’s modest fees made the notary impartiality suspect, distinguishing the case from Tumey because the fee arrangement was too remote and the notary’s actions were subject to later judicial review under the statute.

Real world impact

The decision upholds Ohio’s practice of enforcing deposition subpoenas by permitting immediate commitment for a witness’s refusal, while preserving later judicial review or discharge. It affects witnesses in civil depositions, the parties seeking discovery, and notaries or officers who take depositions, and it encourages compliance with discovery rules.