EX PARTE JOHN L. TILLINGHAST, ESQUIRE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
John L. Tillinghast applied for admission to the Supreme Court bar after being struck from the roll of counselors in a lower federal court for contempt. The Supreme Court held that it lacked authority to punish contempts committed in another court and that, since Tillinghast satisfied the Court's own admission requirements, he must be admitted to practice before it regardless of his disciplinary history in the district court. The decision established that the Supreme Court's bar admission standards are independent of disciplinary actions taken by lower courts.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr Chief Justice Marshall.
- The court has had under its consideration the application of Mr Tilunghast for admission to this.bar. The court finds that he comes within the rules established by this' court. The circumstance of his having been stricken off the roll of counsellors of the district court of the northern district of New York, by the order,of the judge of that court for a contempt, is one which the court do not mean to say was not done for sufficient cause, 6r that it is not one of a serious character ; but this court does not consider itself authorised to punish here for contempts which may have been committed in that court.
When, on a former occasion, a mandamus was applied for to restore Mr Tillinghast to the roll of counsellors of the district court, this court refused to interfere with the matter; not considering the same within their cognizance.
The rules of this court having been in every respect complied with, Mr Tillinghast must be admitted a counsellor of this court.
On consideration of the motion made by Mr Hoffman, it is ordered by the court that John L. Tillinghast, Esq, of the state of New York, be admitted as an attorney and counsellor of this court, and he was sworn accordingly.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bessette v. W. B. Conkey Co., 194 U.S. 324 (U.S. 1904)…are peculiar-in some respects, rightfully styled sui generis. They are triable only by the court against [*337] whose authority the contempts are charged. No jury passes upon the facts; no other court inquires into the charge. Ex parte Tillinghast, 4 Pet. 108. As said by Mr. Justice Miller, speaking for the court, in Eilenbecker v. Plymouth County, 134 U. S. 31, 36: “If it has ever been understood that proceedings according to the common law for contempt of court have been subject to the right of trial…
-
In re the Petition of Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46 (U.S. 1917)…te court establishing the want of fair private and professional character subject to the limitations stated, we confine ourselves to the case before us and therefore do not in the slightest degree call in question the ruling in Ex parte Tillinghast, 4 Pet. 108, that a mere punishment for contempt by an inferior federal court was not a sufficient ground for preventing admission to the Bar of this court, there being nothing to indicate that the action of the inferior court was based upon the doing of acts w…
-
In re Disbarment of Isserman, 345 U.S. 286 (U.S. 1953)…t do not mean to say was not done for sufficient cause, or that it is not one of a serious character; but this court does not consider itself authorised to punish here for contempts which may have been committed in that court.” Ex parte Tillinghast, 4 Pet. 108, 109. The remedy for courtroom contempt should be prompt and direct punishment proportioned to the offense. Isser-man has been severely punished. His penalty has included what is rare in the punishment of lawyers’ contempts — a substantial jail sent…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence