¶1A motion was made at the general term, that the name of an attorney be stricken from the rolls for mal-practice. Notice of the motion had been given, and the attorney appeared to oppose. The court was disinclined to hear the motion, but as the attorney made no objection to the manner in which the matter was presented, and on the contrary, desired the motion might proceed, the parties were heard. The court took the papers, and at a subsequent day in term denied the motion; observing, however, that the motion had been irregularly brought before them. That the proper course of proceeding would have been for the party complaining to have presented the evidence of the facts upon which he relied, and the court would then have looked into it, and if they had come to the conclusion that the interests of the public or the honor of the profession required such proceeding, they would have directed a rule to shew cause.
22 Wend. 656
Anon
Decided October 15, 1840
New York Supreme Court · decided 1840-10-15
<p>Where it is intended to’apply to the court to have the ñamé of an attorney stricken from the rolls, the proper course of proceeding is, not to give notice of the motion, but to present the evidence relied on to the court, who will direct a rule to show cause to be entered, if a case proper for the action of the court lie presented.</p>
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1840-10-15
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently March 1904
5 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →