Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

herent, irrespective of statute; United States v. Lancaster, 44 Fed. 890, 10 L. R. A. 320, holding citizen of one State may apply to Federal court to punish by contempt a violation of its decree against citizen of another State; Hillmon v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 79 Fed. 750, holding court may punish summarily for contempt in its presence or obstructing its justice; United States v. Sweeney, 95 Fed. 450, punishing violation of injunction as contempt; Hughes v. The People, 5 Colo. 446, holding power to punish contempt independent of statutory provisions; Cooper v. People, 13 Colo. 357, 22 Pac. 796, 6 L. R. A. 437, holding court may summarily punish for publication of articles referring to pending cause; Hawkins v. State, 125 Ind. 573, 25 N. E. 819, holding inherent power to punish for contempt cannot be abridged by legislature; In re Millington, 24 Kan. 222, upholding inherent power to punish for publication of articles reflecting on court in case at issue; In re Wolley, 11 Bush, 112, punishing incorporation of insulting language in petition for rehearing; State v. Judge, 35 La. Ann. 1195, holding judge may compel, by rule, appearance of relator, on charge of contempt; In re Chadwick, 109 Mich. 601, 67 N. W. 1076, punishing attorney for publishing letter criticising decree of court; Kregel v. Bartling, 23 Neb. 852, 37 N. W. 670, holding power to punish for contempt not dependent upon statute; In re Hughes, 8 N. Mex. 241, 43 Pac. 697, holding editor punishable for printing article criticising motive of judge in pending proceedings; State v. Markuson, 5 N. Dak. 160, 64 N. W. 938, holding contempt summarily punishable without jury trial; Burke v. Territory, 2 Okl. 509, 37 Pac. 833, holding inherent power to punish contempt cannot be taken away by statute; State v. Frew, 24 W. Va. 453, 49 Am. Rep. 269, denying power of legislature to deprive courts of power to punish summarily constructive contempts; State v. Frew, 24 W. Va. 477, punishing publication of libel on judges, with reference to pending case; In re Rosenberg, 90 Wis. 586, 63 N. W. 1066, holding refusal of judgment debtor to disclose property, punishable contempt; dissenting opinion in Interstate Commerce Commn. v. Brimson, 155 U. S. 5, 39 L. 50, 15 S. Ct. 20, holding contempt not committed, majority opinion supra; In re Cary, 10 Fed. 625, holding to sustain contempt proceedings, order must have been clear and certain. See notes in 12 Am. Dec. 179, and 45 Am. St. Rep. 72.

Cited, but not applied, in State v. Circuit Court, 97 Wis. 8, 65 Am. St. Rep. 92, 72 N. W. 194, 38 L. R. A. 558, denying power to punish for publication of strictures on judge, not referring to pending causes.

Contempt.- Power of Circuit and District Courts to punish for contempt is limited by act of 1831 to cases of misbehavior in presence of court, of misbehavior of any officer of the court in official transactions, and of disobedience to lawful writs, etc., p. 511.

Cited and relied upon in Savin, Petitioner, 131 U. S. 276, 33 L 153, 9 S. Ct. 701, holding offering money to witness in hallway, mis

behavior in court's presence; In re May, 2 Flipp. 568, 1 Fed. 742, holding juror guilty for corruptly conferring with party during trial; United States v. Anonymous, 21 Fed. 768, holding it contempt to interfere with examination of witness; Kirk v. Milwaukee, etc., Mfg. Co., 26 Fed. 505, 508, holding Federal court cannot impose penalties for contempt allowed by State statute, but not by act; Jeffries v. Laurie, 27 Fed. 199, ordering imprisonment of counsel for failure to obey order to turn over money collected for client; Ex parte Buskirk, 72 Fed. 20, 25 U. S. App. 613. hoiding violation of attorney's orai stipulation not punishable as contempt; Indianapolis Water Co. v. American Strawboard Co., 75 Fed. 977, 978, holding violation of injunction contempt, punishable, irrespective of motive; Hillman v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 79 Fed. 751, holding writing of circular letter reflecting on conduct of litigation, not punishable as contempt; Hovey v. Elliott, 145 N. Y. 136, 137, 39 N. E. 842, 843, 39 L. R. A. 460, 461, and n., holding Federal courts lacked power to punish for contempt by striking out answer; State v. McClaugherty, 33 W. Va. 255, holding court, under statute, cannot fine attorney for publishing libellous charge against judge in newspaper; S. C., p. 256, holding State appellate court deprived by statute from power to punish contempts; State v. Hansford, 43 W. Va. 776, 28 S. E. 792, holding drafting petition for rehearing by strangers to action, not contempt on part of attorney; dissenting opinion, in Ex parte Wall, 107 U. S. 303, 27 L. 566, 2 S. Ct. 601, majority holding attorney properly disbarred for commission of crime; In re Buckley, 69 Cal. 17, 10 Pac. 78, majority holding power to punish for contempt may be limited by legislature. See extended note in 98 Am. Dec. 420, and 2 Am. St. Rep. 847, monographic note.

Distinguished in Burke v. Territory, 2 Okl. 516, 37 Pac. 835, holding statutory limitation of power to punish for contempt does not extend to territorial courts; Carter v. Commonwealth, 96 Va. 810, 811, 32 S. E. 783, 45 L. R. A. 313, 314, holding inherent power to punish for contempt cannot be restricted by legislature; State v. Frew, 24 W. Va. 459, 49 Am. Rep. 274, holding rule restricted to Federal courts.

Contempt.- Disbarment for contempt is void under judiciary act of 1789, which, by prescribing punishment by fine or imprisonment, excludes other modes of punishment, p. 512.

Cited in Denver, etc., Ry. v. Atchison, etc., R. R., 5 McCrary. 292, 16 Fed. 853, holding court cannot make order in nature of further directions for enforcement of decree; United States v. Memphis, etc., R. R., 6 Fed. 240, holding corporation may be fined for contempt in disobeying injunction. See 45 Am. St. Rep. 86, monographic note.

Distinguished in In re Boone, 83 Fed. 948, and United States v. Green, 85 Fed. 859, disbarring for unprofessional conduct.

ANN

Attorney and client.- Power to disbar an attorney can be exercised only when there has been such conduct on his part as shows him unfit to be a member of the profession, p. 512.

Cited and principle applied in United States v. Green, 85 Fed. 861, disbarring attorney for filing brief containing libellous language regarding judges; State v. Judge, 49 La. Ann. 1018, 22 So. 196, holding courts possess inherent power to disbar for unprofessional conduct; In re Davis, 93 Pa. St. 121, 39 Am. Rep. 731, holding court may disbar attorney for embezzlement from client, notwithstanding abandonment of prosecution by latter. See 95 Am. Dec. 338, extended note on disbarment; also 2 Am. St. Rep. 849, monographic note.

[ocr errors]

Attorney and client. Before judgment of disbarment is rendered attorney should have notice of grounds of complaint against him, and ample opportunity of explanation and defense, p. 512.

Cited and principle applied in In re Commrs. of Circuit Court, 65 Fed. 317, refusing to order removal of commissioners without trial; In re Boone, 83 Fed. 947, holding attorney entitled to notice of charges preferred; State v. Finley, 30 Fla. 313, 11 So. 503, holding charges in disbarment proceedings must be specific and particular; State v. Schultz, 11 Mont. 432, 28 Pac. 644, holding State examiners cannot revoke physician's certificate without notice; In re Orton, 54 Wis. 384, 11 N. W. 586, holding charges must be specific and opportunity for defense given. See 52 Am. Dec. 302, note; 95 Am. Dec. 334, 341, extended note on disbarment; also 2 Am. St. Rep. 859, and 45 Am. St. Rep. 74, monographic note on grounds for disbarment.

Qualified in In re Brown, 2 Okl. 596, 39 Pac. 471, holding attorney entitled merely to reasonable opportunity to prepare defense.

Mandamus is proper remedy for restoration of attorney disbarred by court exceeding its jurisdiction in the matter, p. 513.

Cited in Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 330, 25 L. 673, as to functions of mandamus; dissenting opinion in Ex parte Wall, 107 U. S. 318, 27 L. 572, 2 S. Ct. 614, majority denying mandamus because lower court had jurisdiction. See notes in 95 Am. Dec. 344, and 2 Am. St. Rep. 862.

Distinguished in Ex parte Terry, 128 U. S. 306, 32 L. 409, 9 S. Ct. 80, reprinted in 13 Sawy. 465, holding Supreme Court on habeas corpus cannot deal with defects making proceedings simply irregular. Criticised and departed from in In re Orton, 54 Wis. 380, 11 N. W. 584, holding appeal, not mandamus, proper remedy.

Attorney and client.- From an order of disbarment neither appeal nor writ of error will lie, p. 514.

Approved in Butler v. People. 2 Colo. 297, holding error does not lie to judgment for contempt.

Distinguished in Matter of Eldridge, 82 N. Y. 166, holding order punishing attorney for professional misconduct reviewable on appeal upon facts; In re Brown, 2 Okl. 591, 39 Pac. 470, holding appeal lies from order suspending attorney pending trial on disbarment charges; State v. Knight, 3 S. Dak. 512, 44 Am. St. Rep. 810, 54 N. W. 413, holding, under statute, error lies to judgment for contempt.

Miscellaneous.- Robinson's case, 131 Mass. 380, 41 Am. Rep. 243, holding women inadmissible as attorneys.

19 Wall. 514-518, 22 L. 172, RYAN v. UNITED STATES.

Internal revenue.- Sureties on bond for transportation of certain boxes of tobacco to another district, are responsible for transportation of the tobacco, not of the boxes, p. 518.

Internal revenue.- Carelessness of revenue inspector, making fraud easier of accomplishment, does not release sureties on bond for transportation of tobacco to another district where principal shipped empty boxes, p. 518.

Cited and applied in Stern v. People, 102 Ill. 550, holding sureties on treasurer's bond cannot plead failure of board to require principal to account. See 63 Am. St. Rep. 328, 337, monographic note.

19 Wall. 519-526, 22 L. 158, BURKE v. MILTENBERGER.

War.- Provisional Court of Louisiana, established during Civil War, was not dissolved until April 2, 1866, p. 525.

Followed in Burke v. Tregre, 154 U. S. 642, 38 L. 1090, 14 S. Ct. 1197, affirming Burke v. Tregre, 28 La. Ann. 438, an identical case; Betz v. Illinois Cent. Ry., La. Ann., 24 So. 656, holding ordinary civil authority of State ceased during Federal occupation; Daniel v. Hutcheson, 86 Tex. 61, 65, 22 S. W. 936, 938, holding military courts created in Texas under reconstruction acts, existed until April 16, 1870.

Evidence.- Judicial notice will not be taken of orders issued by military commanders during Federal occupation of Louisiana during Civil War, p. 526.

Followed in Burke v. Tregre, 154 U. S. 642, 38 L. 1090, 14 S. Ct. 1197, affirming Burke v. Tregre, 28 La. Ann. 438, an identical case; Johnston v. Wilson, 29 Gratt. 382, refusing to judicially notice military orders. See extended notes in 89 Am. Dec. 670, and in 49 Am. Rep. 206.

19 Wall. 526-531, 22 L. 160, HEAD v. THE UNIVERSITY.

Colleges and universities.— Professor in State university, elected for term "subject to law," may be removed without fault, by sub sequent action of legislature before expiration of term, p. 531.

Cited and principle applied in State v. Gales, 77 N. C. 286, holding clerk may be deprived of fees by transferring part of court's bust ness to new court; Prairie v. Worth, 78 N. C. 173, holding sheriff takes office subject to legislative power to control duties thereof; Caldwell v. Wilson, 121 N. C. 469, 28 S. E. 561, holding legislature in creating office may reserve right of removal; Gillan v. Board of Regents, 88 Wis. 13, 58 N. W. 1044, 24 L. R. A. 338, holding power to remove teacher at pleasure a discretionary one.

19 Wall. 531-544, 22 L. 155, INSURANCE CO. v. SEAVER.

Appeal and error.- Error cannot be assigned on ruling not excepted to below, p. 540.

--

Insurance. Where one engaged in unlawful racing is thrown from sulky, but uninjured, and in attempting to stop horse, is killed, death cannot be attributed to new and controlling cause, but must be considered as incurred while racing, and as within provision in policy, that contract shall not extend to death by breach of law, p. 544.

Cited and principle applied in Gresham v. Equitable Ins. Co., 87 Ga. 499, 27 Am. St. Rep. 264, 13 S. E. 752, 13 L. R. A. 839, and n., holding death from duel not covered by policy excepting death by fighting, although slayer was insane; Bloom v. Franklin Ins. Co., 97 Ind. 486, 49 Am. Rep. 476, holding it sufficient to work forfeiture that wounds causing death were received while violating law; Freeman v. Mercantile, etc., Assn., 156 Mass. 354, 30 N. E. 1014, 17 L. R. A. 755, and n., approving charge as to proximate cause of death; Wolff v. Connecticut Ins. Co., 5 Mo. App. 242, holding death incurred in consequence of commission of misdemeanor, within exception: Etna Ins. Co. v. Vandecar, 86 Fed. 289, 57 U. S. App. 460, to point that insurance company has right to limit its liability; Portsmouth Ins. Co. v. Reynolds, 32 Gratt. 619. See 35 Am. Rep. 650, note, on proximate cause; 36 Am. St. Rep. 861, monographic note on proximate cause; 60 Am. St. Rep. 161, 163, extended note on death from violation of law.

Distinguished in Insurance Co. v. Bennett, 90 Tenn. 269, 25 Am. St. Rep. 692, 16 S. W. 726, holding unlawful act, as contemplated by policy, does not apply to mere immoral acts.

Insurance. Instruction leaving jury to determine from evidence of ordinary people residing in same district as insured, whether horse-racing was within clause exempting company from liability for death due to “duelling, fighting or other breach of the law," p. 543.

19 Wall. 544-547, 22 L. 183, BUTT v. ELLETT.

Chattel mortgage of crop not yet sown is inoperative until crop grows when lien attaches, p. 547.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »