Court Opinion

ID: 88891
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-28 16:01:51+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:34.449487
License: Public Domain

86 U.S. 513 (____)
19 Wall. 513
EX PARTE ROBINSON.
Supreme Court of United States.

*514 Mr. Justice CLIFFORD, after stating the facts respecting the order disbarring the appellant, delivered the opinion of the court as follows:
The petitioner moves the court to advance the case. Cases involving great hardships are frequently brought here for revision, and in such cases it is competent for the court to advance the same on motion. Still the motion must be denied, as it is well-settled law that neither an appeal nor a writ of error will lie in such a case. Hence it was held in the case of Ex parte Bradley, that mandamus from this court to a subordinate court was a proper remedy to restore an attorney at law, disbarred by such subordinate court, for a contempt committed by him before another court, as in such a case the court issuing the order disbarring the attorney had no jurisdiction to pass the order.
Whether the present case can be distinguished from the case cited will not now be decided, but the court is of opinion that the remedy of the party, if any, in this court, is not by an appeal.[*]
MOTION DENIED.
NOTES
[*]  Ex parte Bradley, 7 Wallace, 364.