Dean v. Stone

• Decision Date: 02 February 1894
• Citation: 35 P. 578,2 Okla. 13,1894 OK 2
• Parties: DEAN v. STONE et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

35 P. 578

2 Okla. 13, 1894 OK 2

DEAN v. STONE et al.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

February 2, 1894

Syllabus by the Court.

1. A complaint which alleges that an attorney who had been disbarred in Indiana practiced a fraud and deception upon the court by securing his admission to practice in the courts of Oklahoma upon a certificate issued by the Indian court, prior to judgment disbarring him, states facts sufficient to disbar an attorney, under section 5, c. 6, p. 117, St. 1893.

2. In proceedings to revoke an order of a court, admitting an attorney to practice law, obtained by fraud and deceit, the defendant is not entitled to a trial by jury as a matter of right, and the statutes of Oklahoma do not contemplate that such proceedings shall be tried by jury.

3. A transcript of a judgment from a circuit court of Indiana duly authenticated by the proper officers, is admissible in evidence, though it does not show that it was signed by the presiding judge. Anderson v. Ackerman, 88 Ind. 481 and cases cited, followed.

4. A party in a civil suit, not triable by a jury, is not entitled to a change of venue from the county on account of local prejudice of the citizens; it is only in cases where a jury trial may be had that the aid of such statute may be invoked.

Appeal from district court, Oklahoma county; John G. Clark, Judge.

Complaint by E. W. Stone and others against J. C. Dean for the cancellation of defendant's license to practice as an attorney at law. There was judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Amos Green & Son, for appellant.

W. S Field, for appellees.

BURFORD J.

The appellant, Dean, is a practicing attorney, duly admitted to the bar in the district court of Oklahoma county. The appellees are a committee of the bar of said court, appointed by the court to prepare, file, and prosecute proceedings against appellant to secure the cancellation of the order of said court admitting him as an attorney at law, and to have him disbarred. A complaint was filed in the district court by appellees, consisting of a number of separate counts, to all of which the appellant demurred, for the reason that they did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The demurrer was overruled, and appellant excepted, and assigns this ruling of the court as error. The appellees, after their evidence was introduced, and before finding or judgment, elected to stand upon the first count of the complaint, and judgment was rendered thereon; hence we need only consider the sufficiency of said count.

It is alleged, in substance, that the appellant, Dean, was admitted to the bar, and was a practicing attorney in the state of Indiana; that at the October term, 1891, of the Howard circuit court of Howard county, Ind., such proceedings were had and judgment rendered against the appellant as revoked his license to practice law, and he was, by the judgment of said court, disbarred from practicing law in all the courts of said state; that immediately after the rendition of said judgment, and while same was in full force and effect and unappealed from, and before the appellant, Dean, had ever been reinstated or readmitted, he appeared in the district court of Oklahoma county, with a certificate of admission as an attorney at law from the circuit court of Grant county, Ind., which certificate bore date long prior to the date of said judgment of disbarment, and presented said certificate to the judge of said court for the purpose of deceiving said judge and court, and for the purpose of proving to said court that he was a man of good moral character, and sufficiently learned in the law to qualify him for admission as an attorney at law in the courts of Oklahoma; and that said court, relying upon said canceled certificate as true, admitted said Dean as an attorney, and licensed him to practice in the courts of Oklahoma. And said complaint seeks to have the order admitting him as an attorney vacated and set aside, and his said certificate revoked. We think this complaint states a good cause of action. It comes squarely within the provisions of section 5, c. 6, p. 117, St. Okl. 1893, which makes it a cause for disbarment for an attorney to be guilty of deceit or collusion, or to consent thereto, with intent to deceive a court or judge. It is evident from the allegations of the complaint in this case that the whole purpose and object of the appellant was to deceive the court, and secure his admission to the bar upon the strength of a certificate which he knew had been revoked by the solemn judgment of a court of record; and, even if it did not come within one of the statutory causes for suspension of an attorney, a fraud of this character could certainly be inquired into, and a proper remedy applied. Courts of general jurisdiction have the inherent power to purge themselves from a fraud perpetrated upon the court by an officer of the court, or by one to secure for himself the privileges of an officer of the court.

The appellant filed a general denial to the complaint, and before trial, filed his motion and...