State v. Foreman
| Decision Date | 31 October 1834 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. FOREMAN. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
ORDER BY CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY.
Foreman, on motion of the Circuit Attorney, was suspended from practice as an Attorney and Counselor at law of the Circuit Court of St. Louis county, and a copy of the order of suspension in compliance with the law has been sent to this court. (See section 7th of the act concerning Attorneys and Counselors at Law, Rev. Code, p. 159.) The section referred to gives to the Circuit Court the power to suspend for any misconduct, which in the opinion of the court is sufficient to justify his being stricken from the rolls. By the 6th section of the same act, the Supreme Court has power to strike from the rolls any attorney who shall have been convicted of felony, or guilty of improperly retaining his clients' money after demand made by the client for the same, mal-practice in his office, gross ignorance or neglect of duty, or contempt of court. The charge against Foreman as set out in the order of the Circuit Court is, that it was proved to the court that he had passed counterfeit notes knowing them to be such, and that being indicted for the offense aforesaid, and confined in the common jail of the county of St. Louis, he made his escape therefrom. It is the opinion of this court that the offense with which Foreman is charged is not any one of those enumerated in the 6th section above referred to, and the power to strike from the rolls for such cause not being given, this court cannot exercise it. The cause is therefore remanded to the said Circuit Court, and that court is required to dissolve the said suspension.(a)
M'GIRK, C. J., dissenting.
My opinion is that causes of dismissal exist independent of the statute, and may be inquired into beyond its provisions.
(a). See ante 480, and Strother v. State, 1 Mo. R. 605.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clark v. Austin
...the trial court failed to follow the statute: Strother v. State, 1 Mo. 605; State v. Watkins, 3 Mo. 481; State v. Foreman, 3 Mo. 602. In the Foreman case M'Girk, C. J., dissented "My opinion is that causes of dismissal exist independent of the statute, and may be inquired into beyond its pr......
-
In re Sizer
...to Practice Law, 143 N.C. 1, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 293; Danforth v. Eagan, 139 St. Rep. 1030; Kane v. Haywood, 66 N.C. 1; State v. Foreman, 3 Mo. 602; State rel. v. Laughlin, 73 Mo. 443; State ex rel. v. Peabody, 63 Mo.App. 380; Editorial Note, In re Philbrook, 45 Am. St. 72. (6) The power to......
-
In re Williams
...for failure to comply with the statute regarding procedure. A much clearer decision than the last one mentioned is that of State v. Foreman, 3 Mo. 602, 603, handed down at the October term, 1834. The judgment of the lower court suspending a lawyer from practice was reversed, and the court s......
-
In re Sizer
...of. La. 1804, c. 7, § 4; Coust. 1820, art. 5; Laws of 1824, "Attorneys," §§ 2-6; Constitutions of 1835, 1845, 1855, and 1865; State v. Foreman, 3 Mo. 602; Strother v. State, 1 Mo. 605; State v. Watkins, 3 Mo. 480; Sanders Anchor Line, 97 Mo. 26, 10 S. W. 595, 3 L. R. A. 390; 6 R. C. L. 54. ......