Rules Of Practice

Certain orders made by the courts for the purpose of regulating the practice of members of the bar and others. Every court of record has an inherent power to make rules for the transaction of its business; which rules they may from time to time change, alter, rescind, or repeal. While they are in force, they must be applied to all cases which fall within them; they can use no discretion, unless such discretion is authorized by the rules themselves. Rules of court cannot, of course, contravene the constitution or the law of the land. Thompson v. Hatch, 3 Pick. (Mass.) 512; Clarke v. Magruder, 2 Harr. & J. (Md.) 79; Fullerton v. Bank, 1 Pet. (U. S.) 604, 7 L. Ed. 280; Boas v. Nagle, 3 S. & R. (Pa.) 253. General rules are binding upon the court as well as upon the parties, except where in the original rule or body of rules there is power to exercise discretion in particular cases; Quynn v. Brooke, 22 Md. 288; Pratt v. Pratt, 157 Mass. 503, 32 N. E. 747, 21 L. R. A. 97; Mji gnu son v. Billings, 152 Ind. 177, 52 N. E. 803; Coyote G. & S. M. Co. v. Ruble, 9 Or. 121 (containing an elaborate discussion of the subject); so of rules of appeal; Taylor v. Leesnitzer, 31 App. D. C. 92; Royal Neighbors of America v. Simon, 135 111. App. 599. In many of the above cases the violation of its rule by the court was held to be reversible error. In Southern Pac. Co. v. Hamilton, 54 Fed. 474, 4 C. C. A. 441, it is said to be within the power of a court to suspend its rules. In the following cases there is a disposition to relax the operation of general rules where their enforcement would work injustice. An examination of many of them will show that what is said is obiter, while in others of them the rules in question are those of pleading and practice merely; Gillette-Herzog Mfg. Co. v. Ashton, 55 Minn. 75, 56 N. W. 576; Lance v. Bonnell, 1C5 Pa. 46; Eastman v. Mfg. Co., 44 N. II. 143, 82 Am. Dec. 201; Southern Pac. Co. v. Johnson, 69 Fed. 559, 16 C. C. A. 317; Mc Neish v. Oats Co., 57 Vt. 316. Rules were held binding in Hagar v. Mead, 25 Cal. 599, and Hanson v. Mc Cue, 43 Cal. 178; but cases in People v. Williams, 32 Cal. 280, Pickett v. Wallace, 54 Cal. 147, and Sullivan v. Wallace, 73 Cal. 307, 14 Pac. 789, are conflicting with those cases. See note to 8 Del. Ch. 446. A settled practice of printing the records in patent cases and taxing it as costs has the effect of a rule of court; Detroit Heating & Lighting Co. v. Kemp, 182 Fed. 847.