« 이전계속 »
any single witness. Greenleaf states, as a rule, that the sufficient evidence to outweigh the force of an answer may consist of one witness, with additional and corroborative circumstances, which circumstances may sometimes be found in the answer itself; or it may consist of circumstances alone, which, in the absence of a positive witness, may be sufficient to outweigh the answer even of a defendant who answers on his own knowledge. Greenleaf on Evidence, vol. iii. sect. 289.
It is contended for the appellees, that this is not a case of equitable cognizance, because a plain, adequate, and complete remedy may be had at law. But the case is one of a transfer of the legal title to the stock, made to defraud the creditors of the bank. The evidence of title to the stock is the formal assignment on the books of the bank. This being a bill for discovery as well as relief, and the fraudulent transfer being good between the parties, and only voidable at the election of the plaintiff, it is clear that equity has jurisdiction to set it aside and enforce the liability of the transferrer,
Objection is taken here, by the appellees, to the sufficiency of the proof that the Comptroller of the Currency decided, before this suit was brought, that it was necessary to enforce the personal liability of the stockholders. The plaintiff, as a witness, testified that he received written instructions from the Comptroller of the Currency to enforce the whole of the personal liability of the stockholders. The defendant Johnson objected tl at the written evidence referred to must be produced. The record states that the plaintiff reserved the right to file the paper, or a duly certified copy of it, with the deposition, before the same should be closed. Before the deposition was closed the witness was recalled, and produced, as the record states, the original letter, addressed to him and signed by the Comptroller, and it was filed with the deposition. No objection was made to it, and no requirement of further proof was made. It directs the receiver to institute legal proceedings to enforce against every stockholder of the bank owning stock at the time the bank suspended, his or her personal liability, as such stockholder, under the statute. This was sufficient.
The liability of the defendant bears interest from the date of said letter, Aug. 13, 1875. Casey v. Galli, 94 U. S. 673.
In June, 1878, Orson Adams was appointed receiver of the bank, in place of Bowden, the plaintiff. The decree of the Circuit Court was not made till January, 1879. The appeal to this court was taken in the name of Bowden, Adams not having been substituted as plaintiff. Adams became surety in the appeal bond, and thus treated the decree as valid and adopted the appeal. Adams now moves to be substituted as plaintiff and appellant in place of Bowden, without prejudice to the proceedings heretofore had. The appellees and their counsel first heard of the appointment of Adams from the papers served on the motion for substitution, and the appellees now move to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that none was ever lawfully taken. We think that the motion of Adams should be granted, and that of the appellees denied. Adams prosecuted the appeal in the name of Bowden, who was and is in life, and had a representative capacity. The power of amendment to this extent is authorized by sect. 954 of the Revised Statutes. It is of the same character as that exercised by this court in Gates v. Goodloe, where a writ of error was sued out by two bankrupts after their discharge in bankruptcy, and this court, on a motion to dismiss the writ, and a counter motion by the assignee in bankruptcy to be substituted as the plaintiff in error, denied the former motion and granted the latter. 101 U. S. 612.
The motion of Adams is granted, an, hat of the appellees denied. The decree of the Circuit Court will be reversed, with costs, and the cause remanded, with directions to that court to enter a decree in favor of the substituted plaintiff, as receiver, setting aside, as against him, the transfer of the one hundred and thirty shares of stock by Johnson to Mrs. Valentine, and decreeing that Johnson pay to said receiver the sum of $13,000, with interest thereon, at the lawful rate in the State of New Jersey, from Aug. 13, 1875, with costs. It is
EX PARTE WALL.
A rule was made by the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern
District of Florida, which, after reciting that it had come to the knowledge of the court that W., an attorney of the court, did, on a day specified, engage in and with an unlawful, tumultuous, and riotous gathering, he advising and encouraging thereto, take from the jail of Hillsborough County, and hang by the neck until he was dead, one John, otherwise unknown, thereby showing such an utter disregard and contempt for the law which, as a sworn attorney, he was bound to support, as shows him to be totally unfitted to occupy such position : thereupon cited him to appear at a certain time and show cause why his name should not be stricken from the roll. The attorney appeared, and answered, denying the charge in mass, and excepting to the jurisdiction of the court, (1) because there was no charge against him under oath, (2) be. cause the offence charged was a crime by the laws of Florida for which he was liable to be indieted and convicted. The court overruled the exceptions, and called a witness who proved the charge, showing that the hanging took place before the court-house door, during a temporary recess of the court; thereupon the court made an order striking Wi's name from the roll. On motion made here for a mandamus to compel the judge of that court to reverse this order, and he having answered the rule, showing the special circumstances of the case, - Held, 1. That although not strictly regular to grant a rule to show cause why an attorney should not be struck off the roll, without an affidavit making charges against him, yet that, under the special circumstances of this case, the want of such affidavit did not render the proceeding void-as coram non judice. 2. That the acts charged against the attorney constituted sufficient ground for striking his name from the roll. 3. That although, in ordinary cases, where an attorney commits an indictable offence, not in his character of attorney, and does not admit the charge, the courts will not strike his name from the roll until he has been regularly indicted and convicted, yet that the rule is not an inflexible one; that there may be cases in which it is proper for the court to proceed without such previous conviction; and that the present case, in view of its special circumstances, the evasive denial of the charge, the clearness of the proof, and the failure to offer any counter proof, was one in which the court might lawfully exercise its summary powers. 4. That the proceeding to strike an attorney from the roll is one within the proper jurisdiction of the court of which he is an attorney, and does not violate the constitutional provision which requires an indictment and trial by jury in criminal cases ; that it is not a criminal proceeding, and not intended for punishment, but to protect the court from the official ministration of persons unfit to practise as attorneys therein. 6. That such a proceeding is not an invasion of the constitutional provision that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; but that the proceeding itself, when instituted in proper cases, is due process of law. 6. That, as the court below did not exceed its powers in taking cognizance of the case, no such irregularity occurred in the proceed. ing as to require this court to interpose by the writ of mandamus.
PETITION for mandamus.
MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the court..
A petition was filed in this case by J. B. Wall for an alternate writ of mandamus to be directed to James W. Locke, district judge of the United States for the Southern District of Florida, to show cause why a peremptory writ should not issue to compel him to vacate an order made by him as such district judge, prohibiting said Wall from practising at the bar of said court, and to restore said Wall to the rights, privileges, and immunities of an attorney and proctor thereof. The petition set forth the proceedings complained of, and an order was made by this court requiring the judge to show cause why the prayer of the petition should not be granted. The rule to show cause has been answered, and we are now called upon to decide whether the writ ought to be granted.
The proceedings of the court below for disbarring the petitioner were substantially as follows:
On the 7th of March, 1882, during a term of the said court, held at Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, the same court exercising both Circuit and District Court jurisdiction, J. W. Locke, the judge then holding said court, issued, and caused to be served upon the petitioner, the following order:
“CIRCUIT COURT OF THE U. S., So. DISTRICT OF FLORIDA.
" MARCH TERM, 1882. “ Whereas it has come to the knowledge of this court that one J. B. Wall, an attorney of this court, did, on the sixth day of this present month, engage in and with an unlawful, tumultuous, and riotous gathering, he advising and encouraging thereto, take from the jail of Hillsborough County, and hang by the neck until he was dead, one John, otherwise unknown, thereby showing such an utter disregard and contempt for the law and its provisions, which, as a sworn attorney, he was bound to respect and support, as shows him to be totally unfitted to occupy such position:
“ It is hereby ordered that said J. B. Wall be cited to appear and show cause by eleven o'clock Wednesday, the eighth instant,
why his name should not be stricken from the roll of attorneys, and he be disbarred and prohibited from practising herein.
*(Signed) JAMES W. LOCKE, District Judge. “Tampa, FLORIDA, March 7, 1882.”
Wall appeared in court at the return of this rule, and, on the following day, filed a written answer, as follows:
“ This respondent, now and at all times hereafter saving and reserving to himself all and all manner of benefits of exception to the many errors, uncertainties, and imperfections in the said rule contained, prays leave to object, as if he had demurred thereto, to the right, authority, or jurisdiction of this court to issue said rule and require him to answer it:
“ 1st, Because said rule does not show that the matters therein charged took place in the presence of the court, or were brought to the knowledge of the court by petition or complaint in writing under oath; and,
“2d, Because respondent is charged in said rule with a high crime against the laws of Florida not cognizable in this court, and for which, if proven, this respondent is liable to indictment and prosecution before the State court; but for answer to so much of said rule as this respondent is advised that it is material or proper for him to make answer to, answering, saith
“ He denies counselling, advising, encouraging, or assisting an unlawful, tumultuous, and riotous gathering or mob in taking one John from the jail of Hillsborough County and causing his death by hanging in contempt and defiance of the law, or that he has been guilty of any unprofessional or immoral conduct which shows him to be unfitted for the position of an attorney and proctor of this court, as he is charged in the said rule. “Whereupon he prays to be hence dismissed, &c.
J. B. WALL.”
The court 'overruled the exceptions to its jurisdiction, and called to the stand Peter A. Williams, the marshal of the district, whose testimony, at the request of the respondent, was reduced to writing, and was as follows:
« Peter A. Williams, being duly sworn to testify, says:
“I saw Mr. J. B. Wall and others „come to Mr. Craft's house about two o'clock, March 6th, and having already heard that a sherift's posse had been summoned to protect the jail, I thought by