Imágenes de páginas


1. (Feb., 1790.) Ordered, That (until further orders) it shall be requisite to the admission of attorneys and counselors to practice in this court, that they shall have been such for three years past in the Supreme Court of the state to which they respectively belong, and that their private and professional character shall appear to be fair.

Ordered, That counselors shall not practice as attorneys, nor attorneys as counselors, in this court.

Ordered, That they respectively take the following oath, viz.: “I

do solemnly swear that I will demean myself, as an attorney (or counselor) of the court, agreeably and according to law; and that I will support the Constitution of the United States." 2 Dall. 399.

2. (Feb., 1821.) Whatever authority may be necessary, for an attorney or solicitor to appear for a natural or artificial person, it is not a ground of reversal for error, in an appellate court, that such authority does not appear on the face of the record. It is a formal defect, which is cured by the Statute of Jeofails and the thirty-second section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20. Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738.

3. (Jan., 1830.) That a counselor practicing in the highest court of the State of New York, in which he resides, had been struck off from the roll of counselors of the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York, by the order of the judge of that court, for a contempt, does not authorize this court to refuse his admission as a counselor of this court. Ex parte Tillinghast, 4 Pet. 108.

4. This court does not consider the circumstances upon which the order of the district judge was given, within its cognizance, or that it is authorized to punish for a contempt which may have been committed in the District Court of the Northern District of New York. 16.


5. (Jan., 1848.) An attorney or solicitor cannot withdraw his name, after it has been entered upon the record, without the leave of the court; and the service of a citation upon him, in case of appeal, is as valid as if served on the party himself. United States v. Curry, 6 How. 106.

6. (Dec., 1856.) The competent parties to agree that a case shall be settled, and the writ of error dismissed, are usually the parties upon the record. If either of them has assigned his interest, and it be made known to the court, the interest of such assignee would be protected. Platt v. Jerome, 19 How. 381.

7. But where there was a judgment for costs in the court below, and the attorney claimed to have a lien upon such judgment, for his fees, it is not a sufficient reason for this court to prevent the parties from agreeing to dismiss the

16. 8. (Dec., 1866.) Attorneys and counselors are not officers of the United States; they are officers of the court, admitted as such by its order, upon evidence of their possessing sufficient legal learning and fair private character. Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333.

9. The order of admission is the judgment of the court, that the parties possess the requisite qualifications, and are entitled to appear as attorneys and counselors, and conduct causes therein. From its entry the parties become officers of the court, and are responsible to it for professional misconduct. They hold their office during good behavior ; and can only be deprived of it for misconduct ascertained and declared by the judgment of the court, after opportunity to be heard has been afforded. Their admission and their exclusion are the exercise of judicial power. Ib.

10. The right of an attorney and counselor, acquired by his admission, to appear for suitors and to argue causes, is not a mere indulgence, a matter of grace and favor, revocable at the pleasure of the court, or at the command of the legis

lature. It is a right, of which he can only be deprived by the judgment of the court, for moral or professional delin

quency. 10.

11. (Dec., 1866.) As a general rule, where the United States is a party to a cause, and is represented by the Attorney-General or Assistant Attorney-General, or by special counsel employed by the Attorney-General, no counsel can be heard in opposition, on behalf of any other of the departments of the government. The Gray Jacket, 5 Wall. 370.

12. The rule departed from in this instance, the circumstances being special. Ib.

[blocks in formation]

This court consider the practice of the Courts of King's Bench and of Chancery, in England, as afforeling outlines for the practice of this court; and they will, from time to time, make such alterations therein as circumstances may render necessary.


1. (Aug., 1792.) Ingersoll moved for a rule on the Marshal of the District of New York, to return the writ in this cause; and after advisement the court granted the rule in the following terms:

Ordered, That the Marshal of the New York District return the writ to him directed, in this cause, before the adjournment of this court, if a copy of this rule shall be seasonably served upon him, or his deputy, or otherwise, on the first day of the next term. And that in case of a default he show cause therefor, by affidavit taken before one of the judges of the United States. Oswald v. New York, 2 Dall. 402.

2. (Aug., 1792.) The Attorney-General having moved for information, relative to the system of practice by which the attorneys and counselors of this court shall regulate them

selves, and of the place in which rules in causes here depending shall be obtained, the Chief Justice, at a subsequent day, stated that,

The court considers the practice of the courts of King's Bench and Chancery, in England, as affording outlines for the practice of this court; and that they will, from time to time, make such alterations therein as circumstances may render necessary. 2 Dall. 411.

3. (Jan., 1837.) In a case depending between the States of Rhode Island and Massachusetts, the senior counsel appointed to argue the cause for the State of Rhode Island, by the legislature, was prevented, by unexpected and severe illness, attending the court; the court, on the application of the Attorney-General of the State, ordered a continuance for the term. Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 11 Pet. 226.

4. (Jan., 1840.) By a rule of the Supreme Court, the practice of the English courts of chancery is the practice in the courts of equity of the United States. In England, the party who .puts in a plea, which is the subject of discussion, has the right to begin and conclude the argunent. The same rule should prevail in the courts of the United States, in chancery cases. Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 11 Pet. 210.

5. (Dec., 1850.) A day assigned for the argument, at the next term, of a cause upon the original docket of this court. Pennsylvania v. Wheeling, fc. Bridge Co., 11 How. 528.

6. (Dec., 1852.) The rules of the English Court of Chancery have not been adopted by this court. Those which are applicable to a court of original jurisdiction are not appropriate to an appellate court. Brown v. Aspden, 14 How. 26.

7. (Dec., 1854.) In cases in which this court has original jurisdiction the form of proceeding is not regulated by act of Congress, but by the rules and orders of the court. Florida v. Georgia, 17 How. 478.

8. These rules and orders are framed in analogy to the

practice in the English Court of Chancery. But the court does not follow this practice where it would embarrass the case by unnecessary technicality, or defeat the purposes of justice. 16.

9. (Dec., 1867.) Though there is no general rule of court in regard to the matter, yet, where a party desires to file a bill in original jurisdiction in equity, it has been usual to hear a motion in his behalf for leave to do so. This motion, except in peculiar circumstances (as where the bill asked to be filed was against the President of the United States), is heard only on the part of the complainant. Ten printed copies of the bill were, in this case, ordered to be filed with the clerk. State of Georgia v. Grant, 6 Wall. 241.


10. (Feb., 1792.) In this case the marshal had returned the writ served; and now Sergeant moved for a distringas, to compel an appearance on the part of the state.

While, however, the court held the motion under advisement, it was voluntarily withdrawn and the suit discontinued. Oswald v. New York, 2 Dall. 401.

11. (Feb., 1793.) PROCLAMATION was made in this cause, “that any person having authority to appear for the State of New York is required to appear accordingly ;” and no person appearing, it was ordered, on motion of Coxe for the plaintiff,

BY THE COURT: Unless the state appears by the first day of next term to the above suit, or show cause to the contrary, judgment will be entered by default against the said state. Oxuald v. New York, 2 Dall. 415.

12. (Fel)., 1793.) BY THE COURT: It is ordered, That the plaintiff in this cause do file his declaration on or before the first day of March next.

Ordered, That certified copies of the said declaration be

« AnteriorContinuar »