State v. Holmes
| Decision Date | 24 March 1925 |
| Docket Number | 19122. |
| Citation | 133 Wash. 543,234 P. 275 |
| Parties | STATE v. HOLMES, Clerk of Superior Court. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Appeal from Superior Court, Thurston County; Wilson, Judge.
Action by the State against I. N. Holmes, as Clerk of the Superior Court of Thurston County. Decree for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Roscoe R. Fullerton, of Olympia, for appellant.
John H Dunbar and R. G. Sharpe, both of Olympia, for the State.
This is an action to enjoin the clerk of the superior court of Thurston county from thereafter filing or accepting any papers, pleadings, documents, or proceedings in that court in which any of the individuals described in Exhibit A of the complaint, except of such individuals as have registered and paid their registration fee for the year 1924 and prior years, as required by law, as attorneys at law.
In substance, the complaint alleges: That appellant is the clerk of Thurston county, and ex officio clerk of the superior court of that county; that a large number of individuals have been admitted to practice law in this state who have ever since and including the year 1918 resided in, and had their places of practice in, Thurston county, and have wholly failed to register and pay their annual registration fee of $1 for the year 1924 and prior years, as required by section 139-20, Rem. Comp. Stats., and that the names of such delinquent attorneys are shown by the book for such registration kept by appellant; that ever since February 1 1924, appellant has followed the practice of filing in his office all documents, papers, pleadings, and process pending in the superior court for Thurston county even though the individuals purporting to practice as attorneys have wholly failed and neglected to register and pay such annual registration fee, although the state board of law examiners has demanded that he discontinue such practice. The complaint prays for a decree perpetually enjoining and restraining appellant from filing in any process thereafter begun or then pending in that court any paper, pleading, or document in which any individual purporting to practice as an attorney if the party by whom such filing is offered has failed and neglected to pay his annual registration fee of $1 for 1924 and prior years, during which such individual resided and had his office practice as an attorney in Thurston county. Exhibit A attached to the complaint contains a list of 28 persons who have been admitted to practice law in the state and have ever since and including the year 1918 resided in Thurston county, and practiced therein.
Appellant demurred to the complaint on the grounds: (1) That the court had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action; (2) that respondent had no legal capacity to sue; (3) that there was a defect of parties plaintiff; (4) that the complaint failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
The lower court overruled the demurrer, and appellant declining to plead further, judgment was entered as stated.
Appellant then appealed to this court, but has favored us with no brief. The only brief we have in support of appellant's position is one by amici curiae by the office of the King county prosecuting attorney.
In the brief of amici curiae many statements are made dehors the record to show the great difficulty in enforcing this statute in such a county as King. Of course, we cannot consider such matters outside of the record, and if we could we consider them immaterial.
Respondent states that but two of the grounds of demurrer were seriously urged in the court below, to wit, that respondent had no legal capacity to sue, and that the complaint did not state a cause of action.
The complaint is verified by, and prepared and drawn on behalf of, the state board of law examiners, through its chairman. Section 139-16, Rem. Comp. Stats., provides that the state board of law examiners shall enforce the law relating to attorneys. Other provisions of the statute relating to the state board of law examiners provide that the Attorney General shall represent them. This action was instituted by the office of the Attorney General, in the name of the state. We are satisfied that respondent had the right to bring such action and therefore has legal capacity to sue.
The action is founded upon section 139-20, supra, which reads:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Swanson v. Employment Sec. Agency
...consecutive months in the twenty-four months next preceding his death, for the purpose of determining inheritance taxes. In State v. Holmes, 133 Wash. 543, 234 P. 275, the Court held that a law created a conclusive presumption, which provided that an attorney who failed to register annually......
-
Washington State Bar Ass'n, Matter of, 43705
...was a franchise given by the state. The duty to pay the registration fees imposed by that statute was also upheld in State v. Holmes, 133 Wash. 543, 234 P. 275 (1925). The general rule is the same. In 1 E. Thornton, Attorneys at Law § 63, at 96 (1914), the treatise declares that, in the abs......
-
Brimm v. Cache Val. Banking Co.
...to saying that the office shall be vacant when that event occurs. A similar construction was given those words in State v. Holmes, 133 Wash. 543, 234 P. 275, 276, where a statute provided that attorneys failing to register before the first day of February in any year "shall be deemed suspen......
-
State ex rel. Beck v. Basham
...Inc., 116 N.J.Eq. 40, 172 A. 331, to enjoin violations of statutes and regulations concerning prices for laundry. In State v. Holmes, 133 Wash. 543, 234 P. 275, to enjoin a clerk of the court from filing papers presented by attorneys who had not paid the registration fee required by statute......