BRIDGES V. 8HELD0N. 48 �Pursuant to the order and notice, one of the defendants went to Keokuk for the purpose of attending upon the taking the depositions, and was there on the morning pf the day named, when at 15 minutes before 10 o'cloek the orator, by his attqr- neys there, who were also acting as his attorneys in this cause here, caused process by summons to be served upon him in a suit in the state court of lowa in f avor of the orator against these same defendants, upon the same contract and cause of action involved in this suit. The defendants filed in this cause a motion for an attachment as for contempt, to which 4;he orator appeared and avowed the bringing the suit there, and an intention to prosecute until that cause or this should be ended; but alleges that he bad no expectatiou that any of the defendants would personally attend the taking the testi- mony, nor intention of bringing the sait there at the time of procuring the order and giving the notice. This motion bas been heard on argument of counsel. This order for the tak- ing the testimony was one which the master was fully au- thorized to make by the provisions of equity raie 77. The privilege to parties to jadicial proceedings, as well as others required to attend upon them, of going to the place where they are held, and remaining so long as is necessary and returning wholly free from the restraint of process in other civil proceedings, bas always been well settled and favora- bly enf orced. It is mentioned in the Year Book, 20 Henry VI. 10, and enforced to protect not only the body of a suitorfrom arrest, but his horse and other thiugs necessary for his jpur- ney, which would otherwise be attachable, by the custom of London, from seizure for debt. Bac. Abr. "Privileges," 4, 17, 55; Sellon's Pr. 123; Meekinsv. Smith, 1 H. Black. 636; Nor- ris V. Beach, 2 John. 294. It extends to every case where attendance is a duty in eonducting any proceeding of a judi- cial nature, (Bac. Abr. "Privilege," B 2; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 317;) to attending upon an arbitrator under a rule of court, (Spence v. Stewart, 8 East, 89 ;) upon commissioners in bankruptpy, {Arding v. Flower, 8 T. E. 534;) to witness giving a deposi- tion under an order of court, (1 Greenl. Ev. § 317; U. S. v. Edine, 9 Serg. & Eawle, 147 ;) and to a party inqiiiring after ��� �
