People v. Smith
New York Supreme Court
PENDLETON, having on a former day, obtained a .yule to shew cause, why an attachment should not issue against, the defendant, for appropriating- money collected for his client, who was in prison, now moved to have it made absolute, and in support of the application cited, Sayi Sí. 169» 4 Burr* 2060» Stra, 621» & l Bum 654» insisted the proceeding was unwarranted 5 that the money was retained for costs and other dé* manc^s’ anc^ ^ Slicb a measure was adopted, it would be…
Read the full summary
PENDLETON, having on a former day, obtained a .yule to shew cause, why an attachment should not issue against, the defendant, for appropriating- money collected for his client, who was in prison, now moved to have it made absolute, and in support of the application cited, Sayi Sí. 169» 4 Burr* 2060» Stra, 621» & l Bum 654» insisted the proceeding was unwarranted 5 that the money was retained for costs and other dé* manc^s’ anc^ ^ Slicb a measure was adopted, it would be placing an officer of the court in a worse situation than any other citizen, as be would thus lose the benefit of a trial…
1Per curiam
There is no doubt of the authority of the court to proceed against attornies, for misbehaviour in this summary way. The case in Say. 169, is in point. The defendant’s conduct has been so very improper, that we are bound to interfere. We accordingly, by a special rule direct, that he exhibit to the clerk of the court, in New-Tork, within ten days, his counter demands for costs, and, if any balance appear due on liquidation of the accounts, that he pay it in twenty days, or the attachment issue.
2Cited by10 opinions
- In the Matter of the Application of KnappNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
- In re DaviesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1880
- Schofield Discipline CaseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
- In re FinckeNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1875
- Cottrell v. FinlaysonNew York Supreme Court · 1850
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.