Simbraw, Inc. v. United States
Decision Date | 05 October 1966 |
Docket Number | No. 15782.,15782. |
Citation | 367 F.2d 373 |
Parties | SIMBRAW, INC., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Thomas H. Crider, Chambersburg, for appellant.
Robert C. McDiarmid, Civil Division, Dept. of Justice, John W. Douglas, Asst. Atty. Gen., Bernard J. Brown, U. S. Atty., Morton Hollander, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before STALEY, Chief Judge, and McLAUGHLIN and SEITZ, Circuit Judges.
The sole question in this appeal as stated by the attorney at law representing appellant corporation is "Must a corporation, to litigate its rights in a court of law, employ an attorney at law to appear for it and represent it in the court or courts before whom its rights need to be adjudicated?" As appellant's brief states, "Plaintiff attempted to represent itself by its President, Walter T. Savoye, Sr." The unequivocal answer to the above question is Yes.
The basic statute is 28 U.S.C. § 1654 which reads:
The qualification requirements for attorneys and counsellors at law in order to be admitted to practice in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania are set out in Rules 1, 2 and 3 of that Court. Rule 8(1) of this Court's Rules covers the admission requirements for attorneys and counsellors at law to practice in this Court.
Osborn v. President, etc., United States Bank, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U.S. 738, 6 L.Ed. 204 (1824) is relied on as supporting the theory that the corporate plaintiff can sue by an agent who need not be an attorney at law. Chief Justice Marshall in Osborn, p. 830, said "A corporation, it is true, can appear only by attorney, while a natural person may appear for himself." Because the Chief Justice did not use the full phrase "attorney at law", appellant insists that any person so authorized by a corporation can start and carry through a law suit. There is no basis whatsoever in the Osborn opinion for that conclusion. The particular problem involved was whether the lawyer for the Bank needed to file evidence of his authority to institute the litigation. Immediately prior to the above quoted sentence the Chief Justice in the same sequence made it plain that he was talking solely of attorneys at law. He said p. 828:
Osborn has been referred to in reported opinions...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rowland v. California Men Colony, Unit Ii Men Advisory Council
...United States v. 9.19 Acres of Land, 416 F.2d 1244, 1245 (CA6 1969) (per curiam) (corporation); Simbraw, Inc. v. United States, 367 F.2d 373, 374 (CA3 1966) (per curiam) (corporation). Viewing § 1915(d) against the background of this tradition, its assumption that litigants proceeding in fo......
-
Move Organization v. US Dept. of Justice
...419 F.2d 720, 721 (D.C.Cir.1969) ("corporation could not continue in propria persona") (italics in original); Simbraw, Inc. v. United States, 367 F.2d 373, 373-75 (3d Cir.1966); Brandstein v. White Lamps, 20 F.Supp. 369, 370 (S.D.N.Y.1937) ("while a corporation is a legal entity, it is also......
-
In re Canoe Mfg. Co.
...194, 201–02, 113 S.Ct. 716, 121 L.Ed.2d 656 (1993); United States v. Cocivera, 104 F.3d 566, 572 (3d Cir.1996); Simbraw, Inc. v. United States, 367 F.2d 373 (3d Cir.1966); In re Earle Indus., Inc., 67 B.R. 822 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1986); see also Fed. R. Bankr.P. 9010(a), Advisory Committee Note 1......
-
Dougherty v. United States
...unspecified defendants (id. ¶ I.B). With respect to the remedy sought, Plaintiff asks this Court to “ ‘invalidat[e] ... Simbraw’ 367 F.2d 373 (3rd Cir.1966) on constitutional and statutory grounds” (id . ¶ I.A), and to issue a preliminary injunction that, in effect, would void all judgments......