People ex rel. Chicago Bar Ass'n v. Standidge

• Citation: 333 Ill. 361,164 N.E. 844
• Decision Date: 20 December 1928
• Docket Number: No. 16656.,16656.
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. CHICAGO BAR ASS'N v. STANDIDGE.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

333 Ill. 361

164 N.E. 844

PEOPLE ex rel. CHICAGO BAR ASS'N

v.STANDIDGE.

No. 16656.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 20, 1928.

Proceedings by the People, on the relation of the Chicago Bar Association, to disbar, suspend, or otherwise discipline Harry W. Standidge.

Respondent suspended.

John L. Fogle, of Chicago (Erwin W. Roemer, of Chicago, of counsel), for relator.

Harry W. Standidge, of Chicago, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

An information on the relation of the Chicago Bar Association was filed by leave of this court against Harry W. Standidge, the respondent, charging him with unprofessional conduct and praying that he be disbarred, suspended, or otherwise disciplined. The allegations of the information are: The respondent was admitted to practice as an attorney and counselor at law by this court on or about June 5, 1897, and he has practiced law since in the city of Chicago. Prior to September 13, 1923, he claimed to be rightfully entitled to a lease of the top or twenty-first floor of the City Hall Square building, in Chicago, and was engaged in a controversy with the City Hall Square Company, a corporation, the owner of the building, with respect to the claim. On that day he liled in the circuit court of Cook county a bill to enjoin the owner from interfering with his occupancy of the premises and to compel the owner to execute and deliver to him a lease of the premises from July 1, 1923, which lease he claimed he had already executed on his part. An answer and a cross-bill were filed by the owner, and after a hearing the circuit court granted the cross-complainant a preliminary injunction restraining the respondent from conducting public dances in the demised premises. The respondent prosecuted an appeal from the interlocutory order to the Appellate Court for the First District, and the cause was assigned to the Third Division of that court, of which the Hon. Thomas Taylor, the Hon. John M. O'Connor, and the Hon. Charles M. Thomson were the judges. The court filed an opinion in which it reviewed the evidence at length and found that the respondent's use of the demised premises was inconsistent with the provisions of the lease by which he held possession, and affirmed the order of the circuit court. A petition for a rehearing was denied. Thereafter the respondent instituted suit in the superior court of Cook county against the three judges of the Appellate Court, claiming damages in the sum of $100,000. The declaration consisted of seven counts. These counts charged, in substance, that it was the duty of the defendants, in stating the reasons for their decision, to refrain from ‘negligently, wrongfully, improperly, willfully, wantonly, maliciously and corruptly’ making statements and findings without any legal basis, but that in rendering their opinion they did so in violation of their oaths of office. Certain statements and findings contained in the Appellate Court's opinion were set forth in the declaration, and it was alleged that these statements and findings made known to the world that the testimony introduced by the plaintiff was untrue. The defendants filed a general demurrer to the declaration, and the demurrer was sustained. The respondent thereafter amended his declaration, and, among other things, alleged that the wrong done him would not have been committed if the court had not, as the respondent believed, manifestly exceeded its authority in making findings on the merits of the cause upon the interlocutory appeal. A demurrer was filed to the declaration as amended. The respondent further amended his declaration by striking certain paragraphs from each count and inserting allegations that the defendants in their written opinion made false statements and findings as originally charged, without jurisdiction. A general and special demurrer to the declaration as finally amended was sustained, and the suit was dismissed. The information concludes with the charge that the acts of the respondent were unprofessional and calculated to bring the courts of justice into disrepute and contempt and to tarnish the good name and fame of the legal profession.

The respondent filed an answer to the information. In it he avers that he brought the suit as an individual and not as an officer of the court; that after sustaining the demurrer to his declaration as amended the superior court adjudged costs against him; that he prosecuted an appeal from that judgment to the Appellate Court for the First District; that the demurrer filed to his declaration as amended admitted that he had a valid cause of action against the defendants; and that the relator sought to deprive him of his right, as an individual, to a fair hearing of that cause in the Appellate Court by prosecuting an information to disbar him on a different record. Much of the answer is devoted to a discussion of the facts as, the respondent claims, they appeared in the case in which the preliminary injunction was granted. The respondent further avers in his answer that on an appeal from an interlocutory order granting a preliminary injunction the Appellate Court has no jurisdiction to pass upon the merits of a cause, and if it does so, even the appellant is not bound by its action; that the findings in the opinion of the Appellate Court not only had no place on the appeal from the interlocutory order, but that they were false and inflicted a great and unjustifiable wrong upon him, and that they subjected the judges who made them to a civil action for damages.

The respondent by his answer does not deny the facts alleged in the information, but seeks to justify his conduct. The merits of the controversy between the respondent and his landlord need not be considered in this proceeding. The question to be determined is whether, by instituting a suit against the judges of the Appellate Court who on his appeal affirmed the interlocutory order of the circuit court, and charging them, in the decision...