Commonwealth ex rel. M'Laughlin v. Judges of the District Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
THIS was a motion for a rule to show cause why a mandamus should not issue to the District Court for the city and county of Philadelphia, to restore the relator, Daniel M’Laughlin, to be an attorney of that court, who had been struck from the rolls by an order of the court. M’Laughlin, in propria persona, contended, that there being no other specific remedy to attain the ends of justice, the course is by mandamus.
Read the full summary
THIS was a motion for a rule to show cause why a mandamus should not issue to the District Court for the city and county of Philadelphia, to restore the relator, Daniel M’Laughlin, to be an attorney of that court, who had been struck from the rolls by an order of the court. M’Laughlin, in propria persona, contended, that there being no other specific remedy to attain the ends of justice, the course is by mandamus. Rex v. Windham, (Coivp. 378); Hurst v. The Mayor of Canterbury, (1 Sider. 94) ; and this court is now, by the 10th section of the Act of 16th June 1836, expressly vested with power,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Rogers, J.
It is ruled in The Commonwealth ex relatione, Brackenridge v. The Judges of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland county, (1 Serg. & Rawle 187), that the admission of an attorney of a Court of Common Pleas is a judicial, and not a ministerial act, and for that reason not the subject of a writ of mandamus. That case is an authority directly adverse to the present application; in principle there is no conceivable distinction between them. If the admission of an attorney to the bar be a judicial act, by parity of reasoning, his dismission must…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Case of AustinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1835
- Commonwealth ex rel. Brackenridge v. Judges of the Court of Common PleasSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1814
3Cited by4 opinions
- Commonwealth v. NewtonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1857
- Ex parte LawDistrict Court, S.D. Georgia · 1866
- In re ShoemakerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- In re the Oath to be taken by Attorneys & Counsellors of the National CourtsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1866