gno.law

In re Treadwell

California Supreme Court · No. 9761 · 1884-12-06 · Published · 2 Cal. Unrep. 413 · 4 P. 1192

In re TREADWELL

Area
other

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

By the COURT.

Without expressing any opinion upon the question whether this court could remove or suspend an attorney for causes other than those specified in section 287, Code of Civil Procedure, we have concluded in this case not to investigate the charges which, if proven, would not clearly constitute a cause for suspension or removal under the provisions of the code. Therefore, the objections to the charges growing out of respondent’s transactions with the Bank of Woodland and with Adolph Heine and wife, or either of them, *414are sustained, and the specifications relating to said charges are ordered stricken out. And it is further ordered that the issue raised by respondent’s plea of not guilty to the remaining charge be referred to A. P. Gatlin, Esq., of Sacramento, to take testimony and report the same to this court with all convenient dispatch.