North Laramie Land Co. v. Hoffman

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
Citation184 P. 226,26 Wyo. 327
Docket Number967
PartiesNORTH LARAMIE LAND CO. v. HOFFMAN
Decision Date06 October 1919

ERROR to the District Court, Platte County; HON. WILLIAM C MENTZER, Judge.

Heard on motion to dismiss. No briefs.

Proceedings in error dismissed.

Pam &amp Hurd and William A. Riner, for plaintiff in error.

Kinkead & Henderson, for defendants in error.

BEARD CHIEF JUSTICE. POTTER, J., and BLYDENBURGH, J., concur.

OPINION

BEARD, CHIEF JUSTICE.

In this case a motion by the defendants in error to dismiss the proceedings in error has been filed and submitted. The ground for the motion is stated in a number of separate paragraphs, but all go to the single question of the sufficiency of the petition in error to constitute the commencement of proceedings in error, or to give the court jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action. It appears from the petition on file, and it is admitted, that said petition is subscribed "Pam & Hurd, Attorneys for plaintiff in error," and by no other person or party. It is also admitted that said Pam & Hurd are not members of the bar of this state, or licensed to practice in this court, but are members of the bar of the State of Illinois, and reside in the City of Chicago, in said state; that no permission has been requested by them, or either of them, to appear as attorneys in this court, nor has such permission been granted to them or either of them, at any time, nor have they, or either of them, been admitted by this court as attorneys for the purposes of this case. The statutes of this state regulating proceedings in error, provide: Section 5111, Comp. Stat. 1910, "The proceedings to obtain such reversal, vacation, or modification, shall be by petition in error, filed in the court having power to make the reversal, vacation or modification, and setting forth the errors complained of"; etc. The statutes governing pleadings in courts of record provide: "The pleadings are the written statements by the parties of the facts constituting their respective claims and defences" (Section 4377, id.). "Every pleading and motion must be subscribed by the party or his attorney." * * * (Section 4422, id.). The statutes prescribing the qualification of applicants for admission to practice as attorneys at law, provide: "No one shall be admitted who shall not be a citizen of the United States, a bona fide resident of this state, at least twenty-one years of age, and a person of good moral character" (Section 959, id.). And by section 966, id., it is provided: "Members of the bar of any other state, district or territory of the United States, who may be employed as counsel in any case pending before any of the courts of this state, may be admitted for all the purposes of the case in which they are so employed, by the court before which said case is pending, without examination."

The attorney of the party to an action who is authorized to subscribe pleadings is an attorney who has the right to practice in the court wherein the case is pending; and it has been uniformly held, so far as we have been able to find, that a non-resident attorney has no such right except as provided by statute or rule of court. In Richardson agt. Brooklyn City and Newton R. R. Co., 22 How. Pr. 368, it was held that "An attorney at law, who is a non-resident of this state, has no authority or right to, and cannot, practice in the courts of this state." (We quote from the syllabus.) And in Newburger et al. agt. Campbell, 9 Daly 102, 58 How. Pr. 313, it was held that where a judge knowingly permitted to practice in his court one not regularly admitted to practice, his judgment, rendered in a cause so conducted in violation of law, is void and will be reversed. See also Kaplan v. Berman, 37 Misc. 502, 75 N.Y.S. 1002. In Ellis v. Bingham County, 7 Idaho 86, 60 P. 79, it is said: "A brief has been filed on behalf of the respondent, signed by persons who are not members of the bar of this court. We cannot receive or recognize such briefs, and said brief is ordered stricken from the files. The action of the parties who filed such brief in violation of the statutes and rules of this court, and such practice cannot be tolerated." In Anderson v. Coolin, 27 Idaho 334, 149 P. 286, a motion to strike from all the papers and files originally filed in the supreme court, the name of a non-resident attorney who had signed the same, but who had not been admitted to practice or appear in the case, was sustained. The court said: "We do not wish to be understood as holding that the district courts, as well as this court, have not the inherent power, as a matter of comity, to permit an attorney from a sister state or territory to present argument in any pending case, but even this prerogative should not be abused, and where attorneys from sister states or territories have business which requires their intermittent appearance in the courts of this state, it is quite proper that they should comply with the provisions of the laws of this state regulating the right to engage in the practice of their profession within this jurisdiction." It is to be observed that the statutes of Idaho upon which that case was decided required all pleadings filed in the district courts or the supreme court to be signed by a resident attorney of Idaho. But as we hold that the attorney of the party who is authorized by the statutes of this state to subscribe pleadings is an attorney who, at the time the pleading is filed, is authorized to practice in the court wherein the pleading is filed (of which we will speak later) the decision last above cited is applicable to the case at bar.

A statute of Wisconsin provided that attorneys of other states which granted to Wisconsin attorneys like privileges should be admitted to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • State v. District Court Sixth Judicial District, 1776
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 26 Julio 1932
    ...... waived. Church v. Quiner, 31 Wyo. 222; No. Laramie Land Co. v. Hoffman, 26 Wyo. 327; State v. Court, 33 Wyo. 281; Lawton ......
  • North Laramie Land Co. v. Hoffman
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 18 Octubre 1923
  • North Laramie Land Co. v. Hoffman
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 10 Marzo 1921
    ...and expunge" the petition in error, the motion to dismiss the proceedings in error was sustained and an order of dismissal entered. (26 Wyo. 327, 184 P. 226.) At the term that said motion was disposed of by that order, and within the time prescribed by the rules for an application for rehea......
  • North Laramie Land Co. v. Hoffman
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 22 Noviembre 1921
    ...of Platte County, and another. There was judgment for defendants and plaintiff brings error. Heard on motion to dismiss. (See 26 Wyo. 327; 184 P. 226; 195 P. Motion denied. Kinkead & Henderson, for the motion. This cause is now before the court on motion for the dismissal of the appeal beca......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT