that the deed of trust was valid, and that a good defense could be made. H. H. Dennison and A. G. Vanderpoel, for complainant. Geo. D. Reynolds, for the Cape Girardeau S. W. By. Co. and the Cape Girardeau & S. L. R. Co. Thos. C. Pletcher, pro se; the Illinois, Missouri & Texas Railway Company, and George C. Thilennies. TREAT, J., (orally.) I do not propose this morning to go through a detailed consideration of the record in this case. It suffices that the second railroad corporation, which was the successor of the first railroad corporation, issued bonds. The subject-matter of the validity of those bonds was fully heard in a cQurt of competent jurisdiction, and the bonds were pronounced void. Now, here is an attempt to chltrge the successor of the second corporation with those bonds, which have already been pronounced invalid, without any allegations that would enable the court to fasten on the third corporation void obligations. I cannot understand the theory of the bill to be within any rule of law or equity, and it suffices that the state of the record shows that there is nothing to charge these parties defendants with any of those obligations. ' The decree of the court will be that the bill be dismissed, with costs.
(Oircuit Oourt, S.
A'M'ORNEY AND COUNSEI,OR- SUBSTITUTION-REFERENCE-COSTS-ATTACHMENT.
In an application by a party for leave to substitute a new attorney, which has resulted in a reference to a master, and a decision that the attorney was not entitled to further compensation than he had already received, the court has power to enforce obedience to the order requiring the attorney to pay the costs of the reference by attachment.
Application for Leave to Substitute .New Attorney. Walter D. Edmonds, for plaintiff. A. H. H. Dawson, for defendant.,
WALLAOE, J. Upon further consideration, the doubt suggested upon the argument of this motion, as to the power of the court to enforce obedience to the order requiring the attorney to pay the costs of the reference to the master by attachment, has been wholly removed. The attorney was required by the order to pay the costs to which his client had been unjustly subjected upon his application for leave to substitute a new attorney, which resulted in a reference to a master, and a decision th'1t the attorney was not entitled to further compen-
BERRY V. DE WITT.
sation than he had already received. He has not paid the costs. Treating the present application as though it were made by the client. the plaintiff in the suit, instead of' the master. in whose behalf it is really made, it is one for the· exercise of the summary jurisdiction possessed by courts over attorneys as their officers by attachment, when the professional conduct of the attorney in a cause pending before the court is involved. The statute (section 725, Rev. St.) has not restricted the power of the court to punish for contempt any officer of the court in his official transactions, or his disobedience of any lawful order. It was entirely proper to order the attorney to pay the costs which he had unnecessarily imposed upon his client, and a decent regard for the dignity of the court requires that obedience to the order be compelled. If the respondent had alleged his inability to comply with the terms of the order, such an excuse would be considered; but, in the absence of such an excuse, the case is one where the remedy by attachment should be allowed. The statutes prohibiting imprisonment for debt have no application to such a case. The courts have always allowed the summary remedy of an attachment to compel an attorney to observe the duties inQident to his professional relations towards his clients, and towards the other officers of the court, and in this state it is even held that it is not essential to the exercise of this summary remedy that the transaction should arise out of a suit in the court, or in reference to any legal proceedings. In 'l'e Dakin, 4 Hill, 42. Bawling Green Sav. Bank v. Todd, 52 N. Y. 489; In re H., 87 N. Y. 521. The affidavits on the part of the respondent indicate that he has not been guilty of any intentional disobedience of the order, but rather that he has acted upon a misconception of his rights and duties. An attachment will be issued, unless within 15 days he pays the sum heretofore ordered to be paid, as taxed by the COU1·t.
'D. DE WITT
(Oircuit Oourt, S. D. New York. June 16,1886.)
1. NEW TRIAL-JURy-PREJUDICE-ExPRESSIONS OF OPINION. That some of the jury indicated, by their language and manner in the jury· box. during the progress of the trial, that their minds were opposed to,the defendant's case, is not a ground for a new trial, when there is no adeqnate reason to suppose that any juryman was not impartial when the trial commenced, and when no means were taken by the plaintiff to cause a too hasty or prejudiced decision. 2. SAME-MiSCONDUCT-WAIVER. Misconduct of a juror, in conversing with one of the plaintiffs during. the trial. is waived. if known to the defendant at the time of its occurrence, and not made subject of a motion to the court.
Motion for New Trial.