Anon

22 Wend. 656
New York Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1840·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

A motion was made at the general term, that the name of an attorney be stricken from the rolls for mal-practice. Notice of the motion had been given, and the attorney appeared to oppose. The court was disinclined to hear the motion, but as the attorney made no objection to the manner in which the matter was presented, and on the contrary, desired the motion might proceed, the parties were heard. The court took the papers, and at a subsequent day in term denied the motion; observing, however, that the motion had been irregularly brought before them. That the proper course of proceeding would have been for the party complaining to have presented the evidence of the facts upon which he relied, and the court would then have looked into it, and if they had come to the conclusion that the interests of the public or the honor of the profession required such proceeding, they would have directed a rule to shew cause.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Anon, 22 Wend. 656 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1840).

22 Wend. 656 (Anon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re Brooklyn Bar Ass'n
86 N.Y.S. 1130 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1904)
In re Proceedings for the Disbarment of Lambuth
51 P. 1071 (Washington Supreme Court, 1898)
In re Orton
11 N.W. 584 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1882)
In the Matter of ____, an Attorney
86 N.Y. 563 (New York Court of Appeals, 1881)
In re Brewster
19 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 109 (New York Supreme Court, 1877)
State ex. rel. Wolfe v. Kirke
12 Fla. 278 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1868)
Percey v. Ten Eyck
3 Trans. App. 74 (New York Court of Appeals, 1867)
In Re John Percy
36 N.Y. 651 (New York Court of Appeals, 1867)
Smith v. B. Lynes & Thompson & Co.
3 Sandf. 203 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1849)