State v. William
| Decision Date | 01 January 1879 |
| Citation | 51 Tex. 81 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF TEXAS v. WILLIAM V. TUNSTALL. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from Houston. Tried below before the Hon. R. S. Walker.
This was a proceeding by motion, signed by D. A. Nunn, George W. Wynne, and Earle Adams, practicing attorneys of the court where instituted, filed on the 12th day of May, A. D. 1877, in the District Court of Houston county, against William V. Tunstall, a licensed attorney of the said court, having for its object to strike the said Tunstall from the roll of attorneys for fraudulent and dishonorable conduct. On the 7th day of May, 1877, the said court, on its own motion, acting upon the report and suggestion of the grand jury then made in open court, appointed a committee of three practicing attorneys to investigate and make report of the charges made. The committee heard the sworn statements of witnesses, reduced the same to writing, and made report thereof to the court. Thereupon this motion was filed, charging the said Tunstall with fraudulent and dishonorable conduct in his practice as an attorney.
The respondent filed exceptions and answer on the 24th of April, A. D. 1878, and at the Spring Term, 1878, the cause coming on to be heard, the court sustained the exceptions to the motion, and judgment was rendered in favor of the respondent; from which judgment an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court.
D. A. Nunn, for appellant.
This appeal was taken from the judgment or order of the court below quashing or overruling an information or motion filed by three attorneys of said court to have appellee stricken from the roll as an attorney and counsellor at law, for alleged unprofessional and dishonorable conduct as a practicing attorney of said court.
Upon the threshold of an inquiry as to the correctness of the judgment of the District Court in this proceeding, we are confronted by the question, whether this court has jurisdiction of, or can take cognizance of, the appeal? And, after the careful consideration which the importance of the question demands, we are constrained to say that the present Constitution of the State does not authorize an appeal to this court in a proceeding of this character. The jurisdiction of this court, as far as pertinent to the present inquiry, is restricted by section 3 of article 5 of our present Constitution to civil suits, of which the District Courts have original or appellate jurisdiction. Now, without deeming it necessary to inquire...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eichelberger v. Eichelberger
...and practice of law, Scott v. State, 86 Tex. 321, 24 S.W. 789, 790 (1894) (power to disbar is inherent judicial power); State v. Tunstall, 51 Tex. 81, 86 (1879); Jackson v. State, 21 Tex. 668, 672-73 (1858); State v. Pounds, 525 S.W.2d 547 (Tex.Civ.App. Amarillo 1975, writ ref'd n. r. e.) (......
-
In re Brown
...Proceeding to strike an attorney from the roll for alleged fraud is a quasi criminal case, and no appeal lies from the judgment, (State v. Tunstall, 51 Tex. 81;) but an appeal lies from a summary order, issued compliance with the statute. Ex parte Trippe, 66 Ind. 531. See Thomas v. State, 5......
-
In re Wall
...Proceedings to strike an attorney from the roll for alleged fraud is a quasi criminal case and no appeal lies from the judgment, (State v. Tunstall, 51 Tex. 81;) but appeal lies from a summary order, issued without compliance with the statute, (Ex parte Trippe, 66 Ind. 531; see Thomas v. St......
-
In re Gates
...to strike an attorney from the roll for alleged fraud is a quasi criminal case, and no appeal lies from the judgment, State v. Tunstall, 51 Tex. 81; but an appeal lies from a summary order, issued without compliance with the statute. Ex parte Trippe, 66 Ind. 531. See Thomas v. State, 58 Ala......