In re Disbarment of Hudson

36 P. 812, 102 Cal. 467, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 669
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedMay 16, 1894
DocketNo. 21102
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 36 P. 812 (In re Disbarment of Hudson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Disbarment of Hudson, 36 P. 812, 102 Cal. 467, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 669 (Cal. 1894).

Opinions

The Court.

Application for removal from the office of attorney.

A document entitled “ Accusation” has been presented by H. A. McCraney, in which he alleges certain facts against the above-named Rodney J. Hudson on information and belief, and prays that said Hudson be removed from the office of attorney and counselor at law. The “Accusation” is also supported by the oath of McCraney in the following form:

“State of California, ) “ City and County of San Francisco. Í
“H. A. McCraney, being first duly sworn,deposes and says that he is the affiant in the foregoing affidavit and accusation, that he has heard said affidavit and accusation, and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true of his own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated on information and belief, as to those matters that he believes it to be true.”

Sections 290 and 291 of the Code of Civil Procedure [468]*468provide that the accusation for the removal of an attorney, or counselor, must be in writing, and must state the matters charged, “ and be verified by the oath of some person to the effect that the charges therein contained are true.” It was held in Hotchkiss’ case (58 Cal. 39), that by these provisions the legislature clearly intended that the accusation must be made by one who has at least some information on which he bases his charges, and that an accusation merely upon information that was not supported by the affidavit of the informant was insufficient.

Upon the authority of that case the application is dismissed.

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

Related

Bold v. Board of Medical Examiners
26 P.2d 707 (California Court of Appeal, 1933)
Houtchens v. State
47 S.W.2d 679 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1932)
Lantz v. State Bar
298 P. 497 (California Supreme Court, 1931)
Lassen v. Board of Dental Examiners
142 P. 505 (California Court of Appeal, 1914)
In re Lynn
140 N.W. 710 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1913)
In Re Collins
81 P. 220 (California Supreme Court, 1905)
In re Weed
67 P. 308 (Montana Supreme Court, 1902)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
36 P. 812, 102 Cal. 467, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-disbarment-of-hudson-cal-1894.