In re Dorsey
Supreme Court of Alabama
In this case, a motion was made to admit John L. Dorsey, as an attorney and counsellor of the court, and to •dispense with administering to him the oath, in relation to duelling, required by the act of eighteen hundred and twenty-six.
Read the full summary
In this case, a motion was made to admit John L. Dorsey, as an attorney and counsellor of the court, and to •dispense with administering to him the oath, in relation to duelling, required by the act of eighteen hundred and twenty-six. As this is a case sui generis, and of great importance, involving the constitutional power of the legislature, to pass the act of eighteen hundred and twenty-six, and in which the judges of the Supreme court delivered their opinions seriatim; — The -reporter has thought he would better ■satisfy public opinion, and meet the expectations of the ■bar, by giving…
1Opinion of the Court
GOLDTHWAITE, J. — I
have given lo this subject the consideration demanded by its importance as a constitutional question, and am convinced, that one part of the oath imposed by the act of Assembly, usually called the duelling act, is inhibited by the constitution. As the oath is not divisible, and is in part unwarranted by the *355fundamental law, in my opinion, we ought not to require it to be administered.
The act was passed on the seventh day of January, eighteen hundred and twenty-six, and requires all members of the General fissem ly, all officers and public functionaries, elected or appointed…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Smith v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1828
3Cited by39 opinions
- Moore v. Mobile Infirmary Ass'nSupreme Court of Alabama · 1991
- Henderson by Hartsfield v. Alabama PowerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1993
- Cohen v. WrightCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
- State v. SpauldingSupreme Court of Iowa · 1897
- Finklea v. FarishSupreme Court of Alabama · 1909
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.