Ex Parte TillinghastAnnotate this Case
29 U.S. 108 (1830)
U.S. Supreme Court
Ex Parte Tillinghast, 29 U.S. 4 Pet. 108 108 (1830)
Ex Parte Tillinghast
29 U.S. (4 Pet.) 108
That a counselor practicing in the highest court of the State of New York, in which be resides, had been struck off from the roll of counselors of the district court of the United States for the Northern District of New York by the order of the judge of that court for a contempt does not authorize this Court to refuse his admission as a counselor of this Court.
This Court does not consider the circumstances upon which the order of the district judge was given within its cognizance or that it is authorized to punish for a contempt which may have been committed in the District Court of the Northern District of New York.
Mr. Hoffman moved the court for the admission of Mr. J. L. Tillinghast as a counselor of this Court.
He stated that he was a counselor of the Court of Chancery of the State of New York and of the supreme court of that state, and was at this time in the full exercise and enjoyment of the rights and privileges of a counselor of those courts. He exhibited the certificates in due form of the time of the admission of Mr. Tillinghast to practice in the courts, and that he is now a practitioner of the same. He was enabled to say, from knowing the opinions of three of the judges of the supreme court of New York, and Mr. Tillinghast was respected and had their confidence.
It was understood that the rule of this Court was to admit persons who practiced in the highest courts of the several states, and Mr. Tillinghast was therefore completely within the rule.
It would be disingenuous not to refer to a circumstance which had occurred in relation to Mr. Tillinghast in the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York. In that court he had been struck off the roll of counselors of the court by order of the district judge.
If the causes of that proceeding are now to be inquired into under the relations which existed between him and Judge Conklin and the respect he entertained for him, Mr. Hoffman said he should not interfere. But this Court will not look into this circumstance, and the mere fact of an individual's
having been stricken off the roll would not in itself induce the Court to refuse his admission here. This might occur at the request of the individual or it might be the effect of his acceptance of an office which disqualified him to practice, as that of marshal. Upon this fact alone the Court will not reject this application.
But if the Court will go into an examination of the circumstances of the case, Mr. Tillinghast is fully prepared and willing to proceed, in which he will have the aid of other counsel. He is desirous that this Court would hear the facts and decide upon them, and he expects to be able in the investigation fully to vindicate himself from all reproach.
It is understood that on a former occasion, when a mandamus was applied for to the district judge to restore the applicant to the roll of counselors, this Court would not go into an examination of the facts of the case, and it may not now be disposed to do it. It might also be objected to it that it would be ex parte, and will give to Judge Conklin no opportunity to be heard on the matter.
The certificates of the admission of Mr. Tillinghast to practice in the highest courts of New York and of his now being a counselor of those courts were then filed by Mr. Hoffman.
Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.