THE UNITED STATES, APPELLANTS,
v.
HENRY YATES AND ARCHIBALD MCINTYRE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court permitted an attorney to withdraw his appearance on behalf of appellees in an appeal, holding that while appearance constitutes an admission of notice, an attorney may withdraw in appellate proceedings without prejudicing the appellant's right to proceed, provided the withdrawal does not serve as a disguised motion to dismiss for mere irregularity. The Court reasoned that in appellate practice, unlike in courts of original jurisdiction, the appellee's failure to appear does not delay trial and does not affect the conclusiveness of a judgment against the appellee.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court,
Upon the affidavits filed, the court will permit the attorney who has appeared for the appellees to withdraw his appearance. But this leave will not authorize a motion to dismiss for want of a citation, nor for mere irregularity in its service, provided the appeal is in other respects regularly brought up and authorized by law. The citation is merely notice to the party, and his appearance in person or by attorney is an admission of notice on the record, and he cannot afterwards withdraw it.
But the appearance does not preclude the party from moving to dismiss for the want of jurisdiction, or any other sufficient ground, except for the one above mentioned. And a motion of that. kind is-, in the practice of this court, usually and most properly made by the attorney after his appearance, is entéred on the docket. And-if such a motion is intended to be made in this case, the withdrawal of the appearance is not necessary to. give the appellee a right to make it.
The serious objections which often exist to permitting an attorney to strike out his appearance for a defendant in a court exercising original, jurisdiction, do. not apply in an appellate court. And under the rules of this court, it is, in general, of no importance to the appellant, whether an appearance for the appellee is or is not entered on the record.. For if he is entitled to his appeal, and has prosecuted it to this jcourt according to law, the refusal-or omission of the appellee to appear will not delay the trial, and a judgment, against-him will be as conclusive as if an appearance for him had been entered on the docket, and the case argued by his counsel.
Order. On consideration of the motion by Mr. Baldwin, for leave to strike out his appearance, which had been improvidently entered (by an agent of his) for the appellees in this cause, and of the arguments of counsel thereupon had, as well against as in support of. the motion, it is now here ordered by the court, that the leave prayed for be and the same is hereby granted.
Note by the Reporter. The cáse was afterwards dismissed, upon the same grounds as in the preceding case of. The United States v. Curry and Garland.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
York v. Texas, 137 U.S. 15 (U.S. 1890)
-
Chaffee v. Hayward, 20 How. 208 (U.S. 1857)
-
Peoria Tribe or Band of Indians v. WEA Townsite Co., 117 F.2d 940 (10th Cir. 1941)