Boyd v. Second Judicial Dist. Court in and for Washoe County

• Decision Date: 05 February 1929
• Docket Number: 2832.
• Citation: 274 P. 7,51 Nev. 264
• Parties: BOYD v. SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR WASHOE COUNTY.
• Court: Nevada Supreme Court

274 P. 7

51 Nev. 264

BOYD v. SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR WASHOE COUNTY.

No. 2832.

Supreme Court of Nevada

February 5, 1929

Original mandamus proceeding by James T. Boyd against the Second Judicial District Court in and for Washoe County, Department No. 1, Hon. E. P. Carville, presiding. Dismissed.

James T. Boyd, of Reno, for petitioner.

Cooke & Stoddard, of Reno, for respondent.

DUCKER C.J.

This is an original proceeding in mandamus. Petitioner is an attorney at law, and seeks the writ to compel respondent to admit him to appear as an attorney for the defendant in that certain action pending in the Second judicial district court of the state of Nevada in and for the county of Washoe, entitled Gilbert Mammoth Last Hope Mines Company, a Corporation Plaintiff, v. W. C. Lamb, Defendant.

A brief statement of the other allegations of the petition follows:

In December, 1925, petitioner was employed as an attorney by said Gilbert Mammoth Last Hope Mines Company to defend it in an action brought against it in the Fifth judicial district court of Nye county by one B. F. Curler, wherein the latter charged the said company with having fraudulently converted to its own use 35,000 shares of stock of said company alleged to be his property, to his injury and damage in the sum of $35,000.

Petitioner held various interviews and conferences with the said W. C Lamb and the officers and directors of the said company, and from the information secured from them prepared and filed its answer. He also appeared at the trial of said cause as attorney for the company and examined and cross-examined witnesses and argued said cause to the court.

Curler prevailed in said action, and on the 30th day of November, 1926, was awarded a judgment in the sum of $28,210. In the month of December, 1926, petitioner ceased to be the attorney for the company in said action, and ceased to advise the company in any manner whatsoever.

At all times from the date of the incorporation of said company said W. C. Lamb was a stockholder and the principal promoter in the sale of the stock of said company. On or about the 1st day of March, 1926, he was elected a director and vice president and general manager of the corporation, and at all times from the date of its incorporation had access to its records and files.

On the 16th day of January, 1927, the company commenced the said action against said W. C. Lamb in the Second judicial district court, and Lamb employed the petitioner to aid in preparation of an answer, and otherwise to aid and assist in the defense during the trial of said cause. The company objected to petitioner acting as an attorney for Lamb, and, on motion duly noticed and heard, the trial court rendered a decision enjoining petitioner from appearing as an attorney for Lamb in the action brought against him, and from in any manner proceeding in said action as his attorney.

The doctrine that a court has power in a proper case to enjoin an attorney from appearing for a party is well established. People v. Gerold, 265 Ill. 448, 107 N.E. 165, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 636; State v. Halstead, 73 Iowa, 376, 35 N.W. 457; Brown v. Miller, 52 App. D. C. 330, 286 F. 994, and cases cited; Weeks on Attorneys at Law, §§ 120-271; 2 R. C. L. § 53, p. 975.

This authority is not dependent upon any positive provisions of law. It is a power inherent in a court, and its exercise is designed to prevent injustice in a particular case.

"It is a well-settled general rule," says Mr. Thornton in his work on Attorneys at Law, "that an attorney cannot represent conflicting interests, or undertake the discharge of inconsistent duties. When he has once been retained and received the confidence of a client, he cannot accept a retainer from, or enter the services of, those whose interests are adverse to his client in the same controversy or in matters so closely allied thereto as to be, in effect, a part thereof." 1 Thornton on Attorneys at Law, §...