Browne v. Phelps
| Citation | 97 N.E. 762,211 Mass. 376 |
| Parties | BROWNE et al. v. PHELPS. |
| Decision Date | 01 March 1912 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
BROWNE et al.
v.
PHELPS.
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.
March 1, 1912.
Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; George A. Sanderson, Judge.
Action by J. Merrill Browne and another against Delia C. Phelps. There was a verdict for defendant, and plaintiffs bring exceptions. Overruled.
[211 Mass. 378]J. M. Browne and John S. Richardson, for plaintiffs.
A. L. Richards, for defendant.
HAMMOND, J.
[1] This is an action by a firm of attorneys, consisting of father and son practicing in this state, to recover for services rendered and disbursements made in behalf of the defendant. The main question is whether the transactions were illegal as being in violation of R. L. c. 165, § 45.
This statute so far as material reads as follows: ‘Whoever, not having been admitted to practice as an attorney at law in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, represents himself to be an attorney or counselor at law, or to be lawfully qualified to practice in the courts of this commonwealth, by means of a sign, business card, letter head or otherwise, shall * * * be punished’ by fine or imprisonment.
The senior member of the firm, the father, is a citizen of this [211 Mass. 379]state and a member of the bar here in good standing, having practiced in the various courts of the state and in the federal courts for the past 35 years. The junior member, the son, having been educated in this state, became in 1903 a citizen of the state of New Hampshire and was admitted to the bar of that state in June, 1906. Since his admission he has been actively engaged in general practice of the law in the courts of Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New York and Massachusetts, and also before various federal courts, as a member of the plaintiff firm. He never has been admitted as a member of the bar in this commonwealth, but has practiced here without objection. There is no doubt that in the various ways described in this statute he has represented himself to be an attorney and counselor at law lawfully qualified to practice in the courts of this commonwealth. And the question more precisely stated is whether, being a citizen of New Hampshire and a member of the bar of that state, but not of this, he is included in the phrase ‘whoever, not being admitted to practice as an attorney at law in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.’
The section under consideration first appeared as St. 1891, c. 418, and mutatis mutandis was substantially in...
To continue reading
Request your trial