General
In re Disbarment of TYLER
2 Cal. Unrep. 74013 Pac. 169·Supreme Court of California·1887·CA
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
In re Disbarment of TYLER.
No. 11,442;
February 6, 1887.
13 Pac. 169.
Attorneys—Disbarment—Motion for New Trial.—Where the supreme court has, by its judgment, disbarred an attorney, a motion for a new trial will not be heard by it.
This was a motion for a new trial of the case of In re Tyler, 12 Pac. 289, which was heard before the supreme court of California, December 3, 1886, when said attorney was disbarred by the judgment of the supreme court.
Pillsbury & Blanding for complainant; James Crittenden for respondent, Tyler.
[MAJORITY — By the COURT.]
By the COURT.
The motion for a new trial is not the proper remedy in this cause. Considered as a petition for a rehearing, we see no reason to grant it.
Motion for a new trial and a rehearing denied.