Ex parte Peters
| Decision Date | 20 January 1916 |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 601 |
| Citation | 195 Ala. 67,70 So. 648 |
| Parties | Ex parte PETERS. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Original petition by M. Peters, a disbarred attorney, for reinstatement. Petition dismissed.
M Peters, of Alexander City, pro se.
By an original petition addressed to this court the petitioner Mathew Peters, shows that he was disbarred from the practice of law by a judgment of the circuit court of Tallapoosa county, which judgment was affirmed on appeal by this court on June 30, 1915. The prayer of the petition is that the petitioner be reinstated as a member of the bar, and restored to the privileges which he enjoyed as a licensed practitioner prior to the judgment of disbarment.
Under the statutes of this state (Code, §§ 2991-3008) jurisdiction of proceedings for the disbarment of licensed attorneys is vested in circuit courts, or courts of like jurisdiction. Withers v. State, 36 Ala. 252; Ex parte State Bar Ass'n, 92 Ala. 113, 8 So. 768. In such cases the judgment of the trial court is final and conclusive, unless it should be reversed or modified by the Supreme Court on appeal. But the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is strictly appellate. Code, § 3008.
With respect to the reinstatement of attorneys against whom a judgment of disbarment has been rendered, our statutes are silent. It is, however, generally held--and properly so, we think--that a court which has the power to disbar, has also the power to reinstate, which will be exercised in proper cases. In re Thatcher, 83 Ohio St. 246, 93 N.E. 895 Ann.Can.1912A, 810, and note, 813-815; 4 Cyc. 917, 4, and cases cited. This power to reinstate is based upon the continuing jurisdiction of the court over the subject-matter and the party, and hence it is held that a petition for reinstatement must be addressed, and can be addressed, only to the court which rendered the judgment of disbarment. In the Matter of King, 54 Ohio St. 415, 43 N.E. 686; 4 Cyc. 918, note 4.
It is hardly necessary to observe that this power of reinstatement is by no means in conflict with the general rule as to judgments; that they pass beyond the power and control of the court after the lapse of the term at which they were rendered. The effect of a judgment of disbarment is merely upon the personal status of the attorney proceeded against by withdrawing a privilege theretofore enjoyed; and the subsequent restoration of that privilege by the same court is in no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Fite
...trial was had in the circuit court in the reported cases of McCord v. State ex rel. Allen, 220 Ala. 466, 126 So. 873, and Ex parte Peters, 195 Ala. 67, 70 So. 648. Wright v. Aldridge, 219 Ala. 632, 633, 123 So. 33, 34, it was declared of the Peters' decision, that: "What was said there in r......
-
In re McBride
...for over 70 years. See In re Adriaans, 33 App.D.C. 203 (1909) (reinstatement nine years after disbarment); accord, Ex Parte Peters, 195 Ala. 67, 70 So. 648 (1916); In re Lavine, 2 Cal.2d 324, 41 P.2d 161 (1935); Cantor v. Grievance Committees, 189 Tenn. 536, 226 S.W.2d 283 This is not to sa......
-
Matter of Kerr, M-37-80.
...for over 70 years. See In re Adriaans, 33 App.D.C. 203 (1909) (reinstatement nine years after disbarment); accord, Ex Parte Peters, 195 Ala. 67, 70 So. 648 (1916); In re Lavine, 2 Cal.2d 324, 41 P.2d 161 (1935); Cantor v. Grievance Committees, 189 Tenn. 536, 226 S.W.2d 283 This is not to sa......
-
In re Keenan
... ... in some other jurisdictions in conflict with what is here ... decided we cannot follow them. See Ex parte Peters, 195 Ala ... 67, 68; In re King, 54 Ohio St. 415, 417 ... We conclude that ... the Superior Court is not without ... ...