People v. Smith
3 Cai. Cas. 221, 1 Cole. & Cai. Cas. 497
Opinion
There is no doubt of the authority of the court to proceed against attornies, for misbehaviour in this summary way. The case in Say. 169, is in point. The defendant’s conduct has been so very improper, that we are bound to interfere. We accordingly, by a special rule direct, that he exhibit to the clerk of the court, in New-Tork, within ten days, his counter demands for costs, and, if any balance appear due on liquidation of the accounts, that he pay it in twenty days, or the attachment issue.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
People v. Smith, 3 Cai. Cas. 221, 1 Cole. & Cai. Cas. 497 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1805).
3 Cai. Cas. 221 (People v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Schofield Discipline Case
66 A.2d 675 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1949)
Mundy v. Schantz
52 N.J. Eq. 744 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1894)
In the Matter of the Application of Knapp
85 N.Y. 284 (New York Court of Appeals, 1881)
In re Davies
93 Pa. 116 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1880)
In re Fincke
6 Daly 111 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1875)
In re Peyton
12 Kan. 399 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1874)
Cottrell v. Finlayson
4 How. Pr. 242 (New York Supreme Court, 1850)
Bank of N. York v. Stryker
1 Wheel. Cr. Cas. 330 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1816)
Wilson v. Robertson
30 F. Cas. 160 (Circuit Court of Tennessee, 1809)
Wilson, Assignee v. Robertson
1 Tenn. 463 (Circuit Court of Tennessee, 1809)