Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1898-04-15
SUPREME COURT.
Decision Handed Down By the SUI
preme Court in the Disbarment
Case Of r. A. Eaton.
Court Holds That Costs Cannot be
Recovered by Either Party in
a Disbarment Case.
Eaton Sued to Recover Costs from
Attorneys Who Waged an .
Unsuccessful Case.
Supreme Court.

Supreme Court.
The supreme court Friday morning
handed down a decision in the appeal
of r. A. Eaton of Grand Forks who
sued to recover costs of J. B. Wineman
and r. M. Carothers of Grand Forks, in
an action for disbarment. This disbar.
ment case against Eaton was success
fully prosecuted in the district court
but the supreme court set aside the
order of disbarment and reinstated the
attorney to practice. Eaton then sued
to recover costs in the proceeding and
the district court decided against him.
This action of the lower court is affirmed
by the supreme court, which in it's syl-
labus decides that in a disbarment pro-
ceeding instituted under Sec 434 of the
Revised Codes, no costs or disburse-
ments can be recovered by either party.
The court says in it's decision: If the
court directs an attorney to institute
the proceeding it possesses the power. to
compel obedience to the order, and
whether an attorney acts upon his own
motion or pursuant to an order of court,
there is no provision of law whereby he
can be compensated for his services or
expenses. In theory the attorney who
p%rosecutes acts as impartially and dis
interestedly as the judge who presides
in such a proceeding and both act
wholly for a public object and that
object is the publication Of the bar and
the protection of the court. and the
public from the evil consequences sure
to result from allowing an unworthy
person to exercise the official functions
of an attorney at law. The legislature,
whether wisely or not, has not seen fit to
provide in this statute for the recovery
of either costs or disbursements by
either side, but it is expressly provided
that only the accused can appeal from
the Judgment. The effect of this is of
course to prevent the attorney who pro-
secutes and against whom costs may be
adjudged from having the merits re-
viewed for the purpose of showing that
the matter Al enormously decided
against the prosecution He would,
under this theory, be compelled to pay
costs, without the privilege of attempt
ing to show in this court that he was
enormously cast is his suit and that
Judgment should have been in his favor.
Nor could such prosecutor have the
consolation of knowing that his services
for the public good would be com
pensated out of the public treasury.
They are not so compensated. It is
quite universal, moreover, and wholly
without precedent in this state to award
costs to a person who is unsuccessfully
prose cutting for public ends. We think
too that the Legislature in denying the
right of appeal to the prosecution in a
disbarment case has Intentionally taken
the proceeding out of tho category oil
cases in which costs are awarded and
the right of appeal to both sides is
secured. In brief our conclusion is thai
on account of the anomalous and wholly
unique character of a disbarment pro-
ceeding costs should not be awarded tc
either party in the proceeding in the
absence of express legislative authority
There is in this state no such authority