Skip to main content
· 1/7/1918

Re Investigation of Sherwood

Citations

  • 259 Pa. 254
  • 103 A. 42
  • 1918 Pa. LEXIS 402

Syllabus

<p>Attorneys — Improper conduct — Breach of fidelity to court — Misbehavior in office — Charge of prejudice against judges — Remarles in argument in Federal Court for removal of cause from Common Pleas Court — Privilege—Constitution of United States, Sec. 2, Art. III — Act of Congress of March 8, 1911.</p> <p>1. A court has power to strike the name o£ a member of the bar from the roll for official misconduct in or out of court, irrespective of where the misconduct occurs. A state court may disbar one of its attorneys for misconduct committed in a Federal Court or in any other state court.</p> <p>2. The purpose of Art. Ill, Sec. 2 of the Constitution of the United States extending to the Federal courts jurisdiction in controversies between citizens of different states, was to secure for controversies between citizens of different states a tribunal independent of local influences and surroundings, whether the questions for determination are of fact or law, and it was in pursuance of such purpose that the Act of Congress of March 3, 1911, 36 Stat. 1094, was passed, providing that a defendant in a suit in a state court may remove it to the proper Federal court at any time before the trial thereof, if it shall appear to said court that he will not, from prejudice and local influence, be able to obtain justice in the state court.</p> <p>3. The right of removal from a state court, on the ground of local prejudice, is not confined to prejudices which may affect a jury but extends to those which may influence a judge.</p> <p>4. The test as to whether remarks made by an attorney in derogation of the judges of a Common Pleas Court during the course of an argument for the removal of a cause to the Federal courts on the ground of local prejudice, constitute misbehavior in his office as attorney is not whether the words spoken are true, but whether they were spoken in the course of a judicial proceeding and were relevant or pertinent to the subject or cause of inquiry.</p> <p>5.

Judges: Brown, Frazer, Mestrezat, Potter, Walling

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.