State v. Reynolds

• Decision Date: 28 June 1913
• Citation: 158 S.W. 671
• Parties: STATE ex rel. SELLECK v. REYNOLDS et al., Judges.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

158 S.W. 671

STATE ex rel. SELLECK v. REYNOLDS et al., Judges.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

June 28, 1913.

Rehearing Denied July 10, 1913.

1. COURTS (§ 206) — DISBARMENT — JURISDICTION — INHERENT POWER OF APPELLATE COURTS.

The St. Louis Court of Appeals, established by Const. art. 6, § 12, with power to issue writs of habeas corpus, quo warranto, mandamus, certiorari, and other original remedial writs, and to hear and determine the same, has inherent power to disbar an attorney for misconduct.

2. ATTORNEY AND CLIENT (§ 50) — DISBARMENT — PROCEEDINGS — STATUTES — VALIDITY.

Rev. St. 1909, §§ 951, 952, 956, 958, authorizing the suspension from practice of an attorney guilty of felony, and authorizing charges and proceedings thereon in the Supreme Court and St. Louis Court of Appeals, etc., and providing that, where the charge alleges a conviction of an indictable offense, the court on the production of the record of conviction shall remove or suspend the attorney, and if the charge be for an indictable offense, and no indictment be found, or not prosecuted to trial within six months, the suspension shall be discontinued, unless the delay is produced by accused, provide a reasonable scheme for the disbarment of attorneys; and, where a disbarment information charges an indictable offense the court pending a trial thereon can only suspend the attorney.

Lamm, C. J., and Woodson, Walker, and Brown, JJ., dissenting in part.

In Banc. Certiorari to St. Louis Court of Appeals.

Certiorari by the State, on the relation of Ellroy V. Selleck, against George D. Reynolds and others, Judges of the St. Louis Court of Appeals, to review a judgment of the St. Louis Court of Appeals (168 Mo. App. 391, 151 S. W. 743), disbarring the relator. Judgment of the Court of Appeals quashed.

T. J. Rowe, John A. Talty, and Thos. J. Rowe, Jr., all of St. Louis, for relator. Walter H. Saunders, of St. Louis, for respondents.

GRAVES, J.

This is an original action, by way of a writ of certiorari directed to the St. Louis Court of Appeals, in a case entitled "In the Matter of Ellroy V. Selleck," 168 Mo. App. 391, 151 S. W. 743. The pleadings and facts can be shortly stated. The Bar Association of St. Louis, Mo., through their grievance committee, filed charges against Selleck in the St. Louis Court of Appeals, and asked that Selleck be disbarred. These charges were varied in degree, and were five in number, as indicated by the several counts in the petition filed by this grievance committee of the Bar Association. We need not go into the details of all these charges because only two are here involved. The St. Louis Court of Appeals appointed two most excellent lawyers of that bar to hear the charges against Selleck, and these gentlemen made their report to the court, finding that Selleck was guilty as to the fourth and fifth charges in such petition for disbarment, but not guilty of the first, second, and third charges in such petition contained. The report of these two commissioners was approved by the court, and by the judgment of the court Selleck, a duly licensed lawyer of the state, was debarred from the further practice of his profession in all the courts of Missouri.

We need not go into details of the charges contained in the fourth and fifth counts of the petition upon which Selleck was found guilty. It will suffice to state that there was a finding of guilty upon these two counts, and that they in substance and fact charged Selleck with matters which under the law make up and constitute felonies under the criminal laws of the state. In other words, they were not only indictable offenses, but indictable offenses of the graver kind, i. e., felonies. When the report of the commissioners came in, Selleck by his counsel filed exceptions thereto, and, among other things those exceptions in paragraph 16 and 17 thereof contained the following: "Under the pleadings, the information, or charges, the court has not the authority or power to revoke respondent's license to practice law in the state of Missouri. This court has not jurisdiction in proceedings of this character. It has no jurisdiction, authority, or power to revoke respondent's license to practice law in the state of Missouri. Respondent was duly admitted to practice law, and licensed to practice law in the courts of the state of Missouri by the Supreme Court of Missouri, the sole court with power to issue license to attorneys to practice law in this state. The evidence is uncontradicted that the acts of the respondent complained of were not committed in reference to, or in connection with, any matter pending in this court; therefore the question of the authority inherent in a court to control the conduct of attorneys practicing at its bar does not arise. This court, with certain marked and definite exceptions, is designed to be strictly appellate in its character, duties, and functions. The Constitution of the state of Missouri, in addition to its appellate jurisdiction, abridges this court's powers to issuing writs of habeas corpus, quo warranto, mandamus, certiorari, and other original remedial writs. The jurisdiction of an appellate court conferred by the Constitution cannot be enlarged, although it may be regulated and restricted by legislative enactment." These exceptions the court overruled, and entered a judgment, the material portion of which reads: "It is therefore the judgment of the court that the respondent Ellroy V. Selleck, Esq., who, as appears from the records of this court, is an enrolled member of its bar, be and he is hereby debarred from the further practice of the profession of an attorney and counselor at law under the laws of this state in any of the courts thereof, and especially from the bar of this court; that his license to practice law and as a member of the bar of this state be and the same is hereby canceled and annulled and to be henceforth held as naught. Furthermore, that the relators have and recover the cost of this proceeding, to be taxed by the clerk according to law, of and for the respondent, Ellroy V. Selleck, and that execution issue." Later Selleck filed a motion for rehearing, in which the foregoing and other questions were duly preserved. This motion the court overruled, and Selleck then moved to have the cause transferred to this court upon the said several constitutional questions saved and preserved as aforesaid. This motion was likewise overruled. The court, however, entered a new judgment in lieu of its former judgment of December 3, 1912, but in the material parts it is, in substance, as the one we have quoted hereinabove. In other words, it absolutely debars Selleck from the further practice of his profession in Missouri. With the case in this situation, Selleck applied to this court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted, and the St. Louis Court of Appeals has certified up its record in the case, which shows the facts we have hereinabove outlined.

Upon the filing of the record from the St. Louis Court of Appeals, Selleck, through his counsel, filed a motion to quash such record and judgment, which motion reads: "Now at this day comes the relator, Ellroy V. Selleck, and moves this honorable court to vacate, set aside, and annul the judgment rendered by the St. Louis Court of Appeals on the 3d day of December, 1912, in the case entitled in said court `In the Matter of Ellroy V. Selleck, No. 13,209,' and to quash the summons and all the other proceedings therein, and to adjudge the costs that have already accrued in said case in said Court of Appeals, and the costs that may accrue herein, against Eugene S. Wilson, Luther Ely Smith, Guy A. Thompson, William F. Woerner, and Harry E. Sprague, complainants in said case, because it appears from the certified copy of the record in said case filed herein by the judges of the St. Louis Court of Appeals, in obedience to the writ of certiorari issued herein against said judges, that said Court of Appeals of the city of St. Louis had no jurisdiction to render judgment against Ellroy V. Selleck in said case, and that the judgment rendered by them in said case on the said 3d day of December, 1912, was and is in excess of the jurisdiction of said St. Louis Court of Appeals, for reasons following: First. Said St. Louis Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction to try, hear, and determine said cause entitled `In the Matter of Ellroy V. Selleck,' because the validity of section 952 of the Revised Statute of Missouri of 1909 is drawn in question by reason of the contention of respondent that said section is in violation of section 12, article 6, of the Constitution of Missouri, and sections 1, 3, and 5 of the amendment to the Constitution of Missouri of 1884. Second. Said St. Louis Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction to try, hear, and determine said case against Ellroy V. Selleck because the construction of section 12, article 6, of the Constitution of Missouri, and sections 1, 3, and 5 of the amendment to said Constitution of 1884, is involved. Third. Said court had no jurisdiction to try, hear, and determine said cause because the construction of sections 12, 22, and 30 of article 2 of the Constitution of Missouri are involved. Fourth. Said court had no jurisdiction to try, hear, and determine said cause because the construction of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States is involved, and the proceedings in said case in said St. Louis Court of Appeals are in violation of said constitutional amendment in this: That said proceedings deny to Ellroy V. Selleck the equal protection of the law, and deny to Ellroy V. Selleck due process of law. Fifth. Because the judgment rendered herein by said St. Louis Court of Appeals is in excess of its jurisdiction, being in violation of the provisions of section 958 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri of 1909."

The foregoing sufficiently outlines the case for all present purposes.

I. This record raises at least two questions...