Volume I of Giles Jacob’s 1730 manual of Chancery practice. Alito’s Carpenter dissent cites page 290 on subpoenas duces tecum; the accompanying source note preserves Jacob’s conditions and the limits discussed on page 291.
The Compleat Chancery-Practiser
Giles Jacob · Volume 1 · 1730
1 Giles Jacob, The Compleat Chancery-Practiser (In the Savoy, E. Nutt, R. Nutt, & R. Gosling 1730)
Internet Archive digitization of an eighteenth-century microfilm, item bim_eighteenth-century_the-compleat-chancery-pr_jacob-giles_1730_1, catalogue T113126. A British Museum ownership stamp is visible at the end of Volume I. Volume I appears complete; Volume II is not included. Volume I only; this copy does not complete the two-volume work. The source use is in Alito’s dissent in Carpenter, not the Court’s holding. The Jacob passage concerns a defendant’s writings in Chancery; its stated conditions and limits must accompany any broader analogy. OCR is a discovery aid and must not substitute for the page image.
Open reader → Download this PDF
Source repository ↗
Use in constitutional interpretation
Samuel A. Alito Jr. · Dissent, joined by Justice Thomas
Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296, 363–64 (2018) (Alito, J., dissenting)
Alito cites page 290 to trace the development of subpoenas duces tecum before the Fourth Amendment. Jacob describes a defendant’s admitted possession of writings sought by a bill. The following discussion limits contempt where possession is not admitted or title is asserted. This particular passage describes party production in Chancery and does not by itself establish every feature of third-party production or modern search law.
Read printed 290–91 →
Cites the 1730 edition, Volume I only. The title page identifies E. and R. Nutt, and R. Gosling as printers; booksellers are J. Hooke, J. Shuckburgh, L. Gilliver, and T. Osborne.
Printed page 290 is PDF page 298. Printed page 291 is PDF page 299. Alito’s citation and quotation span 585 U.S. 363–64 in his Carpenter dissent.
The immediately following text qualifies production and contempt where possession is not admitted or title is asserted. This discussion concerns a defendant’s writings in Chancery.
Listed passage pages were visually checked. Other page labels follow the checked sequence and remain inferred. OCR is imperfect.
