1. Where a writ of error is taken to the district court, but no
citation served on the defendant in error agreeably to the act of
1789, the writ will, on motion, be dismissed for want of
jurisdiction.
2. A service of the citation on the attorney or counsel of the
defendant in error is sufficient.
3. But where the attorney of record is dead, it will not do to
serve it on his executrix or other personal representative.
4. Nor can the service be legally made on another member of the
bar who had been a partner of the deceased counsel.
5. The courts cannot notice law partnerships or other private
arrangements, and counsel cannot be known as such unless by their
appearance on the record.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY.
We have looked into this record, and find that the writ of error
must be dismissed. The action was in the nature of an ejectment,
and brought to recover possession of land. The plaintiff below was
William Hart,
junior, a citizen of New York, residing at
Manila. His counsel in the cause was William Hart,
senior.
In March, 1858, judgment was rendered by the court for the
plaintiff. In October of the same year, a writ of error was sued
out, returnable on the first Monday in December next thereafter,
and service of the citation was on the 9th of October admitted by
William Hart, senior. But this writ of error was not returned
during the term to which it was made returnable, and failed,
therefore, to bring up the case. A second writ of error was taken
by the defendant below in August, 1859, returnable to the ensuing
December term of this Court. The citation under
Page 66 U. S. 39
this latter writ was directed to William Hart, junior, and
served according to the marshal's certificate, on Mary Hart, widow
and executrix of William Hart,
senior, who died after the
judgment, and on J. D. Stevenson, his former law partner.
A service of the citation on the attorney or counsel of the
proper party is sufficient; but the executrix of the counsel on
record was not the counsel of her testator's client. His character
and duties as counsel did not devolve on his own personal
representative after his death. Nor is Mr. Stevenson to be regarded
as the counsel of William Hart,
junior, merely because he
had been the partner of William Hart,
senior. We cannot
notice law partnerships or other private relations between members
of the bar. This may have been a partnership, solely because it
provided for a division of profits, without putting either partner
under any responsibility for the suits conducted by the other. The
courts can know no counsel in a cause except those who regularly
appear as such on the record.
The citation not being served on the party as his counsel, the
cause is not brought into this Court, agreeably to the act of 1789;
and the writ must therefore be dismissed for want of
jurisdiction.
Writ of error dismissed.