Scott v. Van Alstyne
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of assumpsit. The suit was commenced by bill against the defendant, as one of the attorneys of the court, in the usual form.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of assumpsit. The suit was commenced by bill against the defendant, as one of the attorneys of the court, in the usual form. The defendant pleaded that at the time of filing the bill against him, he was not one of the attorneys of the court, acting or practising as such, and is not an acting or practising attorney of the court, but had, for more than three years preceding the filing of the bill of the plaintiff, pursued the business of a farmer, and had not, during all that time, attended the court as an attorney, or practised as such, and was not bound by custom to answer…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.. An attorney, being defendant, cannot, by plea, waive or destroy his privilege, because the privilege is allowed him, not for his own sake, but for the sake of the court, and the suitors jn > If he renounces his privilege by mere absence from court, and business, how is the plaintiff to know that fact beforehand ? He can only judge from the record, and it is sufficient for him, the defendant is an attorney, proutpatet per recordum. This is the amount of the doctrine in the adjudged cases. (Gardner v. Jessop, 2 Wils. 42. Farrill v. Head, Barnes, 41.) If the de*217fendant wishes to…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Cohen v. WrightCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
- In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of CoeOregon Supreme Court · 1987
- Ex parte ThompsonOregon Supreme Court · 1898
- In re BurnhamNew York Supreme Court · 1908
- Woodbridge v. CookMichigan Supreme Court · 1831