Dixon v. Minogue
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 258, Jan. T., 1921, by defendant, from order of C. P. Schuylkill Co., July T., 1923, No. 269, making absolute rule on attorney-at-law to pay over money, and for disbarment, in case of Annie R. Dixon v. James F. Minogue. Rule on attorney-at-law to pay over money to client. Before Berger, J. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts. Rule absolute and order for disbarment. Defendant appealed. Error assigned was, inter alia, order, quoting it.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Schaffer,
This proceeding was begun by a petition for and the entry of a rule on appellant, a member of the bar, to pay over money received for a client, collected by him on a mortgage belonging to her. An answer was filed, a motion made for a jury trial, which was denied, and, after hearing, the court made an order directing respondent to pay over and that his name should be stricken from the record of attorneys. Appellant argues that the court erred in not dismissing the petition and awarding a jury trial, that it was mistaken in concluding he has not paid over the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Glenn v. TreesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
- Browne v. HoekstraSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
- In re GraffiusSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
- Balogh v. JacksonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Hardinge v. KuntzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Montgomery County Bar Ass'n v. RinalducciSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- In the Matter of ShigonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
- Moyerman's CaseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
- Kraus's CaseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
- Samuel W. Salus's CaseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.