Philbrook v. Superior Court

Citations

• 111 Cal. 31
• 43 P. 402
• 1896 Cal. LEXIS 541

Syllabus

<p>Suspension of Attorney—Effect of Judgment—Right to Prosecute Assigned Cause of Action—Question of Good Faith—Duty of Court.—A judgment of suspension of an attorney at law only prevents his appearance in court when he represents another, and does not extend to prevent an appearance for himself upon a cause of action in his own favor, or which has been transferred to him in good faith; but the superior court is bound to give due effect to the judgment of the supreme court suspending the attorney, and to inquire whether the transfer is genuine or simulated merely to evade the judgment of the court, and the trial court should first satisfy itself not only that the rights of the adverse party would be protected under the substitution of the assignee, but also that the transfer was not simulated, or an invasion of the judgment of suspension.</p> <p>Id.—Mandamus to Compel Substitution of Assignee.—Where the order refusing to allow a suspended attorney to appear in his own person for the purpose of prosecuting a cause of action assigned to him, is not based upon any finding that the assignment was not made in good faith, but was made after declared recognition by the court of the good faith and sufficiency of the assignment, a writ of mandate will issue compelling the court to allow him to conduct personally in his own interest and behalf and on the part of the nominal plaintiff the cause of action assigned to him.</p>