Ex Parte Tillinghast

29 U.S. 108, 7 L. Ed. 798, 4 Pet. 108, 1830 U.S. LEXIS 467
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided March 18, 1830·Published·Cited by 23 cases

Opinion

Mr Chief Justice Marshall.

- The court has had under its consideration the application of Mr Tilunghast for admission to this.bar.

The court finds that he comes within the rules established by this' court. The circumstance of his having been stricken off the roll of counsellors of the district court of the northern district of New York, by the order,of the judge of that court for a contempt, is one which the court do not mean to say was not done for sufficient cause, 6r that it is not one of a serious character ; but this court does not consider itself authorised to punish here for contempts which may have been committed in that court.

When, on a former occasion, a mandamus was applied for to restore Mr Tillinghast to the roll of counsellors of the dis *110 trict court, this court refused to interfere with the matter; not considering the same within their cognizance.

The rules of this court having been in every respect complied with, Mr Tillinghast must be admitted a counsellor of this court.

On consideration of the motion made by Mr Hoffman, it is ordered by the court that John L. Tillinghast, Esq, of the state of New York, be admitted as an attorney and counsellor of this court, and he was sworn accordingly.

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

Ex Parte Tillinghast, 29 U.S. 108, 7 L. Ed. 798, 4 Pet. 108, 1830 U.S. LEXIS 467 (1830).

29 U.S. 108 (Ex Parte Tillinghast) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gray v. Petoseed Co., Inc.
985 F. Supp. 625 (D. South Carolina, 1996)
Rivers v. Schlumberger Well Surveying Corp.
389 So. 2d 807 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1980)
Brooks v. Laws
208 F.2d 18 (D.C. Circuit, 1953)
In Re Disbarment of Isserman
345 U.S. 286 (Supreme Court, 1953)
Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Leche
9 So. 2d 566 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1942)
Paris v. New York Times Co.
170 Misc. 215 (New York Supreme Court, 1939)
State Ex Rel. Attorney General v. Martin
1927 OK 147 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1927)
State v. Flynn
107 So. 314 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1926)
In the Matter of the Petition of Selling
243 U.S. 46 (Supreme Court, 1917)
Selling v. Radford
243 U.S. 46 (Supreme Court, 1917)
In re Talbot
108 N.E. 240 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1915)
Thatcher v. United States
212 F. 801 (Sixth Circuit, 1914)
In re Thatcher
190 F. 969 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Ohio, 1911)
Propper v. Owens
72 S.E. 242 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1911)
State v. Mosher
103 N.W. 105 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1905)
Bessette v. W. B. Conkey Co.
194 U.S. 324 (Supreme Court, 1904)
In re Litchfield
13 F. 863 (E.D. Michigan, 1882)
C. H. Reed & Co. v. Beall
42 Miss. 472 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1869)
In re Campbell
2 Haw. 27 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1857)
Billings v. Hall
7 Cal. 1 (California Supreme Court, 1857)