The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-11-11
LAWYERS NOT
PRIVILEGED FOLK
Not for American Court to
Declare Them So.
JUDGE CLaRK'S OPINION
An Attorney firm New York Here Attending
Federal Court Claimed He Was Exempt
from Service Of summons in a
Civil acion.

An opinion was handed down yesterday
in the Supreme Court that declared in
uneuuivocal terms that lawyers, whether
st home or abroad, whether attending
court or not are not exempt from beng
served with summons in civil cases. 1t
was concurring opinion in the case of
II. T. Greenleaf VS.. The Peoples Bank,
of New York, from Dare county. written
by Chief Justice Walter Clark. affirming
the opinion OF the court. by Associate
Justice Douglas also concurred in the
opinion OF Judge Clark.
The circumstances of the case were
about as follows: Attorney Morey, OF
New York. was in Raleigh not long ago
as an attorney in a case before Judge
Purnell in the Federal court. While ut
the dining table of the Marlborough Hotel
he was served with a summons in a civil
suit from Dare county. He owns some
land there, and the summons was from a
surveyor he lad employed. and who was
suing for pay which he claimed Mr..
Morey, in the Dare county court. moved
Tor dismissal OF the suit on the ground
,<hat. as g. lawyer engaged upon a case il
court, he was exempt from service 0!
summons. The court did dismiss the case
and it was appealed, with the result that
the Supreme Court now reverses the
Judgment of the lower court
The following are some extracts from
Judge Ciark's concurring opinion:
The defendant, Morey, was served with
summons in this case while at hotel in
this State. He contends that because
he Was a lawyer resident in anothec
State and was attending court in this
State as counsel In a case therein pend
ing. the service should be struck out. The
proposition is a novel enc in q land where
equality before the law is the ruling prin-
clple and where special privileges to any
class of our citizens is not only not reo-
cgnized by law. but is prohibited by the
Constitution. A careful examination
shows no ground for the alleged exemp-
ton of lawyers from service of summons
There Is no precedent in England to sus-
tain the proposition and none IN this
country, save a single case. very recent
one, Hoffman VS.. Circuit Judge. i13 Mich
100, which holds that a lawyer resident
in the same State is privileged from ser
vice of a summons While attending the
Supreme Court OF the State or going Or
returning thereffom, but none of the
authorities cited in that opinion sustain.
its conclusion. The reason given in the
opinion is that while by statute in that
State the prohibition of the arrest oil
counsel in a civil suit is restricted to
the actual sitting of a court at which be
is engaged, that this does not repeal the
common law exemption of counsel from
service of summons. But on the other
hand the most eminent lawyer which that
State (Michiganl has produced Judge
Cooley in note to his work on Constitu-
tional Limitations 18th cdition) ,. ISL
says: Exemption from arrest is not VIC
lated by the service OF citation or decla
ration i'll civil cases. Besides there was
az common law. no exemption Of lawyers
from service of process other than ar
rest and the reason for the latter was
that it would be injury to clients whose
cause had been prepared for trial by
such counsel to suddenly deprive them
Of his services, but service OF a summons
does not have that effect.
In Robbins V. Lincoln, q Fed Rep
S42 (U S. Circuit Court for Illinois) 1t
Is well said 'Inasmucil as resident attor-
news may be served with summons while
in attendance upon court. an attorney
from another State has no greater prlyi-
legc.' This is exactly i'll point here. 1t Is
we'll known that no lawyer in this State
has ever in It's history been privileged, or
centcnded even that he was privileged.
from service OF summons while attending
court. If he were. as the Constitution
Art. ", Sec. % now provides that The
courts are always OPEN no lawyer oil
Judge could ever be served with sum
mons. In England, Blackstone says {;
I'll. Com 2S9) that lawyers could not he
arrested OH civil process while in attend
ance upon court, but could be served witt
a bill, without arrest, which was equiv
alcnt to service OF summons. Tht