Bacon v. Hart

Supreme Court

Bacon v. Hart

66 U.S. 38, 17 L. Ed. 52, 1 Black 38, 1861 U.S. LEXIS 449

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedJanuary 13, 1862

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 66 U.S. 38 (Bacon v. Hart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bacon v. Hart, 66 U.S. 38, 17 L. Ed. 52, 1 Black 38, 1861 U.S. LEXIS 449 (1862).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chiéf Juatice TANEY.

We have looked into'this re- '. cord, arid find that the writ of error must be dismissed. The . action was in the nature of. an ejectment, arid brought to re"eov-er possession of land. The plaintiff, below, was William .Hart, junior, a citizen of New York, residing at Manilla. His counsel in the cause was William Hart, senior. In March, 1858,-judgment was rendered by the coui’t for the plaintiff. In October of.the same year a writ of error was sued out, returnable on the first Monday in December next thereafter, and ■service of the citation .was on the 9th of October admitted by William Hart, Senior. - But this writ of errcr was not returned during the term to which it was made returnable, and failed, therefore, to bring up the ease. A second writ of error was taken by the defendant below in August, 1859, returnable to the ensuing December term of this court., The citation under *39 this latter writ was directed to William Hart, junior, and served according to the marshal’s certificate, on Mary Hart, widow.' and executrix of William Hart, senior, who died after the judgment, and on J. D. Stevenson, his former law partner.

A. service of the citation on the attorney or counsel of the proper party is sufficient; but the executrix of the counsel on-record ivas not the counsel of her testator’s client. His char acter and duties as counsel did not devolve on his own person al representative after his death. Nor is Mr. Stevenson to be. regarded as the counsel of William Hart, junior, merely because he had been the partner of William Hart, senior. We cannot notice law partnerships or other private relations between members of the bar. This may have been a partnership, solely because it provided for a division of profits, without putting either partner under any responsibility for the suits conducted by the other. The courts can know no counsel in a cause except those who regularly appear as such on the record. '

The citation not being served on the party as his counsel, the cause is not brought into this court, agreeably to- the act of 1789; and the writ must therefore be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. .

Writ of error dismissed.

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

Mr. Chiéf Juatice TANEY.

We have looked into'this re- '. cord, arid find that the writ of error must be dismissed. The . action was in the nature of. an ejectment, arid brought to re"eov-er possession of land. The plaintiff, below, was William .Hart, junior, a citizen of New York, residing at Manilla. His counsel in the cause was William Hart, senior. In March, 1858,-judgment was rendered by the coui’t for the plaintiff. In October of.the same year a writ of error was sued out, returnable on the first Monday in December next thereafter, and ■service of the citation .was on the 9th of October admitted by William Hart, Senior. - But this writ of errcr was not returned during the term to which it was made returnable, and failed, therefore, to bring up the ease. A second writ of error was taken by the defendant below in August, 1859, returnable to the ensuing December term of this court., The citation under *39 this latter writ was directed to William Hart, junior, and served according to the marshal’s certificate, on Mary Hart, widow.' and executrix of William Hart, senior, who died after the judgment, and on J. D. Stevenson, his former law partner.

A. service of the citation on the attorney or counsel of the proper party is sufficient; but the executrix of the counsel on-record ivas not the counsel of her testator’s client. His char acter and duties as counsel did not devolve on his own person al representative after his death. Nor is Mr. Stevenson to be. regarded as the counsel of William Hart, junior, merely because he had been the partner of William Hart, senior. We cannot notice law partnerships or other private relations between members of the bar. This may have been a partnership, solely because it provided for a division of profits, without putting either partner under any responsibility for the suits conducted by the other. The courts can know no counsel in a cause except those who regularly appear as such on the record. '

The citation not being served on the party as his counsel, the cause is not brought into this court, agreeably to- the act of 1789; and the writ must therefore be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. .

Writ of error dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 U.S. 38, 17 L. Ed. 52, 1 Black 38, 1861 U.S. LEXIS 449, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bacon-v-hart-scotus-1862.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack