Newman v. Monsanto

Municipal Court of The Virgin Islands

Newman v. Monsanto

6 V.I. 126, 1967 WL 177703, 1967 V.I. LEXIS 10

CourtMunicipal Court of The Virgin Islands

DecidedAugust 18, 1967

DocketCivil No. 164-1967

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 6 V.I. 126 (Newman v. Monsanto) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Municipal Court of The Virgin Islands primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Newman v. Monsanto, 6 V.I. 126, 1967 WL 177703, 1967 V.I. LEXIS 10 (vimunict 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

HOFFMAN, Municipal Judge

ORDER

For the reasons stated in the Court’s opinion of even date herewith denying a similar motion in Civil No. 207-1967, the motion of plaintiff’s counsel to transfer this case to Parti, is DENIED.

The Court would like to stress the point, however, that it shall always require attorneys to submit authority for their course of action or for the judgment they seek whenever this Court has doubts as to the legality or propriety of the lawsuit or course of conduct. Counsel should not take offense at such requests made by the Court, but should welcome them as an opportunity to have their views on the law explained in full to the Court which, after all, has an obligation to administer the law fairly and impartially, even in the absence of opposing counsel or in the event of default.

In the instant case, the Court notes that Counsel has denominated himself as a party plaintiff. As plaintiff, it is the Court’s considered opinion that he is a party in interest within the meaning of 3 V.I.C. § 777. He is thus precluded from acknowledging, as a notary public, the affidavit of the defendant herein to a confession of judgment.

The Court at this time makes no decision on the legality or propriety of counsel notarizing the affidavit of an adverse party, unrepresented by counsel, to a confession [128]*128of judgment. It is, however, the Court’s opinion that 3 V.I.C. § 777 implements the protection of the public against fraud and imposition on the part of a notary public, thus forbidding him from notarizing any instrument to which he is an interested party. This, when considered in conjunction with Canon 9, of the Canons of Professional Ethics, raises some fundamental issues which are not today presented.

The Court wishes it clearly understood, however, that it is not suggesting any unprofessional conduct on the part of counsel.

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

HOFFMAN, Municipal Judge

ORDER

For the reasons stated in the Court’s opinion of even date herewith denying a similar motion in Civil No. 207-1967, the motion of plaintiff’s counsel to transfer this case to Parti, is DENIED.

The Court would like to stress the point, however, that it shall always require attorneys to submit authority for their course of action or for the judgment they seek whenever this Court has doubts as to the legality or propriety of the lawsuit or course of conduct. Counsel should not take offense at such requests made by the Court, but should welcome them as an opportunity to have their views on the law explained in full to the Court which, after all, has an obligation to administer the law fairly and impartially, even in the absence of opposing counsel or in the event of default.

In the instant case, the Court notes that Counsel has denominated himself as a party plaintiff. As plaintiff, it is the Court’s considered opinion that he is a party in interest within the meaning of 3 V.I.C. § 777. He is thus precluded from acknowledging, as a notary public, the affidavit of the defendant herein to a confession of judgment.

The Court at this time makes no decision on the legality or propriety of counsel notarizing the affidavit of an adverse party, unrepresented by counsel, to a confession [128]*128of judgment. It is, however, the Court’s opinion that 3 V.I.C. § 777 implements the protection of the public against fraud and imposition on the part of a notary public, thus forbidding him from notarizing any instrument to which he is an interested party. This, when considered in conjunction with Canon 9, of the Canons of Professional Ethics, raises some fundamental issues which are not today presented.

The Court wishes it clearly understood, however, that it is not suggesting any unprofessional conduct on the part of counsel.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 V.I. 126, 1967 WL 177703, 1967 V.I. LEXIS 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newman-v-monsanto-vimunict-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack