Arthaud v. Griffin, 37599.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
| Writing for the Court | FAVILLE |
| Citation | 210 N.W. 540,202 Iowa 462 |
| Parties | ARTHAUD v. GRIFFIN. |
| Docket Number | No. 37599.,37599. |
| Decision Date | 26 October 1926 |
ARTHAUD
v.
GRIFFIN.
No. 37599.
Supreme Court of Iowa.
Oct. 26, 1926.
Appeal from District Court, Warren County; W. S. Cooper, Judge.
Appeal from an order overruling motion to reinstate a cause which had been dismissed for failure to file a written appointment of a resident attorney to defend suit. Reversed and remanded.
F. L. Arthaud, of Chillicothe, Mo., and W. M. Wilson, of Indianola, for appellant.
A. V. Proudfoot, of Indianola, for appellee.
FAVILLE, J.
The facts in this case appear without dispute. Appellant is an attorney, regularly engaged in practice as such in the state of Missouri. W. M. Wilson is an attorney resident at Indianola, in this state, and duly admitted to the practice of law. Wilson had been previously associated with appellant in conducting a certain lawsuit in the district court of Warren county, Iowa. On the 8th day of August, 1925, Wilson filed in the office of the clerk of the district court of Warren county, Iowa, the petition in this cause, and at the same time delivered a copy of the petition to the attorney for the appellee. By inadvertence Wilson failed to sign the petition as attorney for the plaintiff, but was, as a matter of fact, acting as attorney for the plaintiff. On or about the 20th day of August, 1925, Wilson entered his appearance as attorney for the plaintiff upon the appearance docket, where said cause was filed, and also upon the judge's calendar. On September 1, 1925, the appellee, by his attorney, filed a motion to strike the petition in the above-entitled cause, supporting same by an affidavit. In said motion and affidavit it is recited that the appellant herein appears as attorney for the plaintiff (himself) in said cause, and is a practicing attorney in the state of Missouri and a resident of said state, and that he has not filed with the clerk of the district court of Warren county, Iowa, the written appointment of a resident attorney in the county of
[210 N.W. 541]
Warren and state of Iowa, where said petition is pending, as provided by section 10919 of the Code. The court sustained said motion and ordered the petition stricken from the record.
Thereafter, on the 15th day of September, 1925, the appellant filed a motion to reinstate said cause. Said motion recites the fact hereinbefore referred to, and alleges that Wilson inadvertently failed to sign the petition at the time of filing the same, and that the omission was merely a clerical error on his part. It is also admitted in the record that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith, In re, 38
......367, 239 P.2d 921 (1952), later appeal, 174 Kan. 293, 255 P.2d 650 (1953); Arthaud v. Griffin, 202 Iowa 462, 210 N.W. 540 (1926); Annot., 45 A.L.R.2d 1065, § 2 (1956). It is a ......
-
Ellis, In re, 5044
......204 (1824); Hightower v. Hawthorn, 12 F.Cas. p. 142 (No. 64,780) (Sup.Ct.Ark.1826); Arthaud v. Griffin, 202 Iowa 462, 464, 210 N.W. 540, 541 (1926); Americus v. McGinnis, 128 Wash. 28, 30, ......
-
Metz v. Amoco Oil Co., 96-1485
...In point of fact the court clearly lacked authority to do either. A litigant has a right to appear in court pro se. Arthaud v. Griffin, 202 Iowa 462, 464, 210 N.W. 540, 541 (1926). Nevertheless, even if the order to secure counsel was thus subject to challenge, the court's authority to ente......
-
In re Capps, 11–1395.
...We recognize a litigant has a right to appear in court pro se. Metz v. Amoco Oil Co., 581 N.W.2d 597, 599 (Iowa 1998); Arthaud v. Griffin, 210 N.W. 540, 541 (Iowa 1926). A lay person who fails to utilize professional assistance should be ready to take the consequences. State v. Walker, 236 ......
-
Ellis, In re, 5044
......204 (1824); Hightower v. Hawthorn, 12 F.Cas. p. 142 (No. 64,780) (Sup.Ct.Ark.1826); Arthaud v. Griffin, 202 Iowa 462, 464, 210 N.W. 540, 541 (1926); Americus v. McGinnis, 128 Wash. 28, 30, ......
-
In re Capps, 11–1395.
...We recognize a litigant has a right to appear in court pro se. Metz v. Amoco Oil Co., 581 N.W.2d 597, 599 (Iowa 1998); Arthaud v. Griffin, 210 N.W. 540, 541 (Iowa 1926). A lay person who fails to utilize professional assistance should be ready to take the consequences. State v. Walker, 236 ......