J. F. Sears v. Starbird

California Supreme Court

J. F. Sears v. Starbird

16 P. 531, 75 Cal. 91, 1888 Cal. LEXIS 483

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 4, 1888

DocketNo. 12379

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 16 P. 531 (J. F. Sears v. Starbird) 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

J. F. Sears v. Starbird, 16 P. 531, 75 Cal. 91, 1888 Cal. LEXIS 483 (Cal. 1888).

Pincite

Opinions

Hayne, C.

The brief of the counsel.for appellant contains the following:—

“The court, out of the fullness of his love for a cause, the parties to it, or their counsel, or from an over-zealous desire to adjudicate ‘all matters, points, arguments, ,and things,’ could not, with any degree of propriety under the law, patch and doctor up the case of the plaintiffs, which perhaps the carelessness of their counsel had left in such a condition as to entitle them to no relief whatever.”

Here is a distinct intimation that the judge of the court below did not act from proper motives, but from a love of the parties or their counsel. We-see nothing in the record which suggests that such was the case. On the contrary, the action complained of seems to us to have been entirely proper. (See Sill v. Reese, 47 Cal. -340.) The brief, therefore, contains a groundless charge against the purity of motive of the judge of the court below. This we regard as a grave breach of professional propriety. Every person on his admission to the bar takes an oath to “ faithfully discharge the duties of an attorney and counselor.” (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 278.) And among such duties, as defined by statute, is “to maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers.” (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 282.) Surely such a course as was taken in this case is not a compliance with that duty. In Friedlander v. Sumner G. & S. M. Go., 61 Cal. 117, the court said: “If unfortunately counsel in any case shall ever so far forget himself as willfully to employ language manifestly disrespectful to the judge of the superior court, — a thing not to be anticipated,—we shall deem it our duty to treat such conduct as a contempt of this court, and to proceed ac[93]*93cordingly”; and the briefs in the case were ordered to be stricken from the files.

We therefore advise that the submission of this case be set aside, and that the brief of counsel for the appellant be stricken from the files, and that if a proper brief on behalf of appellant be not filed within thirty days from the entry of the order, the appeal stands dismissed,

Belcher, G. C., and Foote, C., concurred.

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

Hayne, C.

The brief of the counsel.for appellant contains the following:—

“The court, out of the fullness of his love for a cause, the parties to it, or their counsel, or from an over-zealous desire to adjudicate ‘all matters, points, arguments, ,and things,’ could not, with any degree of propriety under the law, patch and doctor up the case of the plaintiffs, which perhaps the carelessness of their counsel had left in such a condition as to entitle them to no relief whatever.”

Here is a distinct intimation that the judge of the court below did not act from proper motives, but from a love of the parties or their counsel. We-see nothing in the record which suggests that such was the case. On the contrary, the action complained of seems to us to have been entirely proper. (See Sill v. Reese, 47 Cal. -340.) The brief, therefore, contains a groundless charge against the purity of motive of the judge of the court below. This we regard as a grave breach of professional propriety. Every person on his admission to the bar takes an oath to “ faithfully discharge the duties of an attorney and counselor.” (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 278.) And among such duties, as defined by statute, is “to maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers.” (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 282.) Surely such a course as was taken in this case is not a compliance with that duty. In Friedlander v. Sumner G. & S. M. Go., 61 Cal. 117, the court said: “If unfortunately counsel in any case shall ever so far forget himself as willfully to employ language manifestly disrespectful to the judge of the superior court, — a thing not to be anticipated,—we shall deem it our duty to treat such conduct as a contempt of this court, and to proceed ac[93]*93cordingly”; and the briefs in the case were ordered to be stricken from the files.

We therefore advise that the submission of this case be set aside, and that the brief of counsel for the appellant be stricken from the files, and that if a proper brief on behalf of appellant be not filed within thirty days from the entry of the order, the appeal stands dismissed,

Belcher, G. C., and Foote, C., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 P. 531, 75 Cal. 91, 1888 Cal. LEXIS 483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-f-sears-v-starbird-cal-1888.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack