Cobb v. Judge of the Superior Court
Michigan Supreme Court
Mandamus. cited Mich. Const., art. vi., § 24, and argued that the only restrictions contemplated by its framers upon license to practice law were that the practitioner should be twenty-one years old and of good moral character, Const. Debates 1850, pp. 812, 817, 822, 843, 894, 896; an agent of any suitor when properly appointed may prosecute or defend the suit of his principal, McClintoelc v. Laing 22 Mich. 220; 1 Green’s Pr. 25.
1Opinion of the CourtMarston, C. J.
In a cause pending in the Superior Court of Grand Rapids some of the defendants appeared by an attorney and afterwards, at their request and with the consent of their attorney, a substitution was made under which a third person not an attorney of the court appeared in the cause as their agent. The present motion raises the right of a party to appear in a court of record by an agent who is not an attorney duly licensed to practice as such. It was claimed on the argument that parties have such right under sec. 24, art. vi. of the Constitution.
Under the legislation in force at the time of…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- People ex. rel. Hughes v. MayMichigan Supreme Court · 1855
- In re MillsMichigan Supreme Court · 1850
3Cited by18 opinions
- Gazan v. HeerySupreme Court of Georgia · 1936
- Boykin v. HopkinsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1932
- Berk v. State Ex Rel. ThompsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1932
- Grand Rapids Bar Ass'n v. DenkemaMichigan Supreme Court · 1939
- State Ex Rel. Baker v. County Court of Rock CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.