Robb v. Smith
| Decision Date | 31 July 1841 |
| Citation | 3 Scam. 46,1841 WL 3244,4 Ill. 46 |
| Parties | Samuel Robb, appellant,v.John Smith, Sen., appellee. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
No person can commence or prosecute a suit in any court of record, as ““agent” for another, unless he has been regularly licensed as an attorney, and his license entered on the roll in the Supreme Court clerk's office, and a suit thus instituted would be dismissed on motion.
This cause was heard in the court below, at the October term, 1839, before the Hon. Samuel H. Treat. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff for $189. The defendant appealed to this court.
J. J. Hardin, for the appellant, cited R. L., 99; Gale's Stat., 81; Stacy v. Baker, 1 Scam., 422; 1 Chit. Plead., 680, 686, 572, 637. J. Lamborn, for the appellee.
A petition was filed in the court below against the appellant, Robb, signed “John Smith, sen., by Thomas Morgan, agent.” The appellant, Robb, moved the court below to dismiss the suit, because it was not signed by the plaintiff himself, or any attorney of the court; which motion the court below denied. There were several other motions, pleadings, demurrer, etc., which were disposed of; and upon some of which questions were made and errors assigned, but none of which we deem it necessary to notice, except the first error assigned, which is, “That the court below overruled the motion to dismiss the suit, because the petition was not signed by the plaintiff himself, or any attorney of the court, but by an agent.”
By the first section of “An act concerning attorneys and counselors at law,”1 it is provided, “That no person shall be permitted to practice as an attorney or counselor at law, or to commence, conduct or defend any action, suit or plaint in which he is not a party concerned, in any court of record within this state, either by using or subscribing his own name or the name of any other person, without previously having obtained a license for that purpose from some two of the justices of the Supreme Court.” The third section requires the clerk of the Supreme Court to keep a roll for the entry of the names and fact of the qualifications of attorneys, and that the oath be indorsed upon the license. Section four provides that “No person whose name is not subscribed to, or written on the said roll, with the day and year when the same was subscribed thereto, or written thereon, shall be suffered or admitted to practice as an attorney or counselor at law within this state, under the penalty hereinafter mentioned, anything in this act to the contrary notwithstanding.” The tenth section secures to plaintiffs and defendants the right to conduct their own causes.
This is a point upon which we have but little authority, and we need little other than the letter and spirit of these provisions. By statute in Missouri, it is made the duty of the circuit attorney to commence all actions, suits, process and prosecutions, civil and criminal, in which the state or any county is concerned. In the case of The County of St. Louis v. Clay,2 the suit was instituted by Mullanphy, attorney (who was not circuit attorney), and the court held that the suit was improperly brought, and dismissed it.
While these salutary provisions remain upon the statute book, not as a restriction upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Downtown Disposal Servs., Inc. v. City of Chi.
...person is permitted to commence an action in an Illinois court of record on behalf of another unless he or she is an attorney. Robb v. Smith, 4 Ill. 46 (1841). A lay person may appear only in his or her own behalf. City of Chicago v. Witvoet, 12 Ill. App. 3d 654, 655 (1973). A lay person ma......
-
In re Day
...public against persons unfit to practice law and to pass laws for that purpose has never been denied. One of the remaining cases is Robb v. Smith, 3 Scam. 46, relating to the right of one not admitted by the court as an attorney to commence or prosecute a suit for another, and is of the sam......
-
Telephone Man, Inc. v. Hinds County, No. 1999-CA-01660-SCT.
...the position taken by the vast majority of jurisdictions); Leonard v. Walsh, 73 Ill.App.2d 45, 220 N.E.2d 57, 59 (1966) (citing Robb v. Smith, 4 Ill. 46 (1841) (holding that no person can commence or maintain an action in a court of record as `agent' for another unless he is a regularly lic......
-
Thornton v. State
...the position taken by the vast majority of jurisdictions); Leonard v. Walsh, 73 Ill.App.2d 45, 220 N.E.2d 57, 59 (1966) (citing Robb v. Smith, 4 Ill. 46 (1841) (holding that no person can commence or maintain an action in a court of record as `agent' for another unless he is a regularly lic......