Gelders v. Haygood

• Decision Date: 26 May 1910
• Citation: 182 F. 109
• Parties: GELDERS et al. v. HAYGOOD et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia

182 F. 109

GELDERS et al. v. HAYGOOD et al.

United States Circuit Court, S.D. Georgia, Western Division.

May 26, 1910

Akerman & Akerman, for petitioners.

Talley & Heyward, for respondents.

SPEER District Judge (orally).

There is no graver duty resting upon the court than to protect the professional integrity of the bar. This proceeding is brought with that purpose. It is alleged that the defendants, both members of the bar, and officers of the United States court are guilty of various acts of misconduct of such character as renders them unfit to longer continue in the practice of a profession to whose care and custody the gravest rights of the public and of individuals are constantly intrusted. The case is quasi criminal in its character, and, as in all other cases of that general character, the burden of proof is upon the prosecution; that is to say, the evidence must so strongly preponderate in support of the accusations brought against the accused that it must produce upon the mind of the trior (here the trial judge) a conviction so clear and so satisfactory of guilt as to leave no fair and reasonable doubt to the contrary. With regard to many, indeed, I may say most of the accusations of personal misconduct on the part of these members of the bar, I do not think the evidence is sufficiently satisfactory to sustain that burden. That is true with regard to the title of Hall, about which it is said that the defendant Mr. Cutts gave an opinion that it was valid, and afterwards brought suit to recover the land conveyed from the person in whose favor the opinion was given. From the evidence it does not appear that he passed upon the title. It appears that he merely passed on the sufficiency of a single deed, to which was attached a draft. That deed he pronounced to be sufficient. He denies that he was paid for that service, but, even if he were paid, he held merely that that one deed was a sufficient deed from the maker to Hall, and, if it afterwards appeared to him in another interest that the title back of that deed was defective and insufficient, I can perceive no insuperable objection to his representing the interest adverse to that of Hall. In other words, if he passed merely on the execution of a single deed, that would not prevent him in a proper case, with proper parties, from assailing the title of which that deed was only one link in the chain.

So with regard to the Ham and Conner averment of improper conduct, it does appear that Haygood & Cutts were employed along with Cannon, to sell a certain tract of land, and they turned out to be the purchasers, but they purchased at the price at which the owners of the land had agreed to sell. The only persons who could be heard to complain with regard to that transaction which involved the principle of agency as well as the principle of the duty of an attorney do not appear; that is, Mrs. Ham and Mrs. Conner. If they are satisfied with it, it does not, I think, lie in the mouth of the prosecution to object on that ground.

So with regard to all of these instances which have been so much discussed, and about which we have heard the evidence, the court is not satisfied as to any misconduct on the part of these defendants.

There is, however, a graver view of the situation to which I must direct my conclusion; and that is, their conduct with regard to the formation of this sham South Dakota corporation, the only advantage of which, one of them testified, was to enable them to bring suits in the United States court where the court would not otherwise have jurisdiction. That corporation was obviously fictitious. It was so held in this court by a verdict of a jury under the charge of the court when the issue was made. A conference was directed by the court, because it was perceived how gravely it might affect the character of these gentlemen. This conference was directed in all kindness and consideration for them. It was suggested that they dismiss the cases. But they took the advice of eminent counsel, Mr. King, of King & Spalding, of Atlanta, and they concluded to take the case to the Supreme Court of the United States in order that the opinion of this court, which they deemed erroneous, might be reviewed, and, if found to be erroneous, reversed. The Supreme Court heard the arguments of their counsel, and rendered its decision. I have the ruling before me. It is in the case of Southern Realty Investment Company v. Nancy Walker, 211 U.S. 603, 29 Sup.Ct. 211, 53 L.Ed. 346. Mr. Justice Harlan, in delivering the opinion of the court, said:

'There was evidence leading to the conclusion that the Southern Realty Investment Company was brought into existence as a corporation only that its name might be used in having controversies that

...