Cobb v. Judge of Superior Court of Grand Rapids

• Decision Date: 14 April 1880
• Citation: 43 Mich. 289,5 N.W. 309
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: COBB v. JUDGE OF SUPERIOR COURT OF GRAND RAPIDS.

5 N.W. 309

43 Mich. 289

COBB v. JUDGE OF SUPERIOR COURT OF GRAND RAPIDS.

Supreme Court of Michigan

April 14, 1880

A party to an action in a court of record cannot appear therein by an "agent" not licensed as an attorney.

Motion for order to show cause.

MARSTON C.J.

In a cause pending in the superior court of Grand Rapids some of the defendants appeared by an attorney, and afterwards, at their request and with the consent of their attorney, a substitution was made under which a third person, not an attorney of the court, appeared in the cause as their agent. The present motion raises the right of a party to appear in a court of record by an agent who is not an attorney duly licensed to practice as such. It was claimed on the argument that parties have such right under section 24, art. 6 of the constitution.

Under the legislation in force at the time of the adoption of the constitution no person was permitted to practice as an attorney or counsellor at law except in the county court, or as a solicitor or counsellor in chancery unless approved by the court for his good character and learning, and duly admitted.

The supreme court was authorized to grant to any citizen of the state, of good moral character, and of the age of 21 years, a license to practice as an attorney, upon an examination, if satisfied that the applicant possessed sufficient legal learning and ability to discharge the duties of such office. Such attorney is required to take the constitutional oath of office, and may be removed or suspended by the several courts in which he is authorized to practice. 2 Comp.Laws, � 5622 et seq. These and other provisions then and still in force show how carefully the right to practice as an attorney was guarded, not in the admission to practice, alone, but in regard to their standing, and retaining such rights thereafter. This legislation, and our entire practice relating to attorneys, has always been observed, and was never supposed to conflict in any way with the constitutional provision referred to. Our rules of practice, in reference to the service of papers, are framed upon the same theory, and do not recognize the right of parties to appear by agents, or persons who are not attorneys and solicitors of the court and we are of opinion that the word "agents," as used in the constitution, does not give the broad authority claimed by the respondent in this case. The Constitutional Debates referred to on the argument throw no real light upon this question.

If the word "agent," as used in the constitution, is not to be construed as synonymous with the word...