HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0392 and id is 1 raw text is: RAND'ALL V. BRIGHAX.
Statement of the case.
ruled the motion, because the assignees could have no in-
terest inn suit for an infringement committed before their
right accrued.*
Attempt is made to distinguish the casd at bar from the
rule established in those, cases, but, in the view of thiis court,
without success.
JUDGMENT REVERSED. NEW VENIRE ORDERED.
RANDALL V. BRIGHAm.
1. An action fot damages does not lie against, a judge of a court of general
jurisdiction, for removing, whilst holding court, an attorney-at-law,
from the bar, for malpractice and misconduct in his office, the court
being empowered by statute to remove attorneys for any deceit, mal-
practice, or other gross misconduct; and having heard the attorney.
removed, ir explanation 'of his conduct in the transaction which was
the subject of complaint. And such action will not lie against the
judge, e- an if the court, in making the removal, exceeds its jurisdiction,
unless perhaps in the case where the act is done maliciously or cor-
ruptly.
2. All j-. dicial officers are exempt from liability, in 4 civil action, for their
judicial acts, done within their jurisdiction; and judges of superior or
general authority, are exempt from such liability, even when their ju-
dicial acts are in excess of their, jurisdiction,'unless perhaps where the
acts in excess of their jurisdiction are done maliciously or corruptly.
3. Formal allegations, making specific charges of malpractice or unprofel-
sional conduct, are not essential as a foundation for proceedings against
attorneys. All that is requisite to their validity, is that, when not taken
for matters occurring in open court, in the presence of the judges, notice
should be given to the attorney of the charges made, and opportunity
uaforded him fbr explanation and defence. The manner in which the
proceeding shall be conducted, so that it be without oppression or injus-'
tice, is a matter of judicial regulation.
4. The construction given to a provision of the constitution of a State, by
the highest court of that State, not called in question by any conflicting
decision of that court, is conclusive upon this court.
ERROR to the Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts.
This action was brought by the plaintiff, who was for-
merly an attorney and counsellor-at-law in MassachUtetts,
* Iilborn v. Rewee, 8 Gray, 415; 1 H illiard on T. 521; Eades y. Harris,
1 Younge '& Collier, 280.
.6ee. 1868.]](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ussccases0392&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)