EX PARTE ROBINSON
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.
An attorney sought to challenge an order disbarring him from practice, but the Supreme Court held that an appeal was not the proper remedy for such a disbarment order and denied his motion to advance the case. The Court indicated that mandamus, rather than appeal, was the appropriate remedy when a court lacks jurisdiction to enter a disbarment order.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice CLIFFORD,
after stating the facts respecting the order disbarring the appellant, delivered the opinion of the court as follows:
The petitioner moves the court to advance the case. Cases involving great hardships are frequently brought here for revision, and in such cases it is competent for the court to advance the same on motion. Still the motion must be denied, as it is well-settled law that neither an appeal nor a writ of error will lie in such a case. Hence it was held in the case of Ex parte Bradley, that mandamus from this court to a subordinate court was a proper-remedy to restore an attorney at law, disbarred by such subordinate court, for a contempt committed by him before another court, as in such a case the eourt issuing the order disbarring the attorney had no-jurisdiction to pass the order. Whether the present case can be distinguished from the case cited will not now be decided, but the court is of opinion that the remedy of the party, if any, in this court, is not by an appeal.*
Motion denied.
*
Ex parte Bradley, 7 Wallace, 364.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Goldsmith v. United States Bd. of Tax Appeals, 270 U.S. 117 (U.S. 1926)
-
Thatcher v. The United States, 241 U.S. 644 (U.S. 1916)…Per Curiam. Dismissed for want of [*645] jurisdiction upon the authority of Ex aparte Bradley, 7 Wall. 364, 376; Ex parte Robinson, 19 Wall. 513. Mr. Rhea P. Cary and Mr. Everett V.. Abbot for the appellant and plaintiff in error. The Attorney General and The Solicitor General for the appellees and defendants in error.…