41 How. Pr. 382 | The Superior Court of New York City | 1870
The only punishment or reproof which this court can administer to the plaintiff’s attorneys upon this motion is, to impose upon them personally the payment of the costs of the motion. It is doubtful if their misconduct is such as would authorize the punishment prescribed by the statute concerning contempts (2 R. S. 534), especially,
The course of practice pursued by such attorneys was unusual, unauthorized, and irregular in every particular. It disturbed and impeded the Just and orderly practice in the action. It was a palpable violation of a standing rule of court (Rule 23), and a contempt for the order which had been previously made.
The decision dissolving the first injunction was res judicata, and no subsequent application, upon the same papers, could be made for another injunction ; and the only remedy of the plaintiff was to appeal from such decision, or to ask for' leave to renew his motion.
• Instead of seeking one or the other of these remedies, the attorneys procured a fresh injunction, in a manner, to my mind, most improper and reprehensible; and their act was not only injurious to the parties to the action, but was degrading to the learned profession of which they are members.
But this court has not the power to reach offenders of this kind in the effectual manner that is possessed by another tribunal, and I can, therefore, do no more, as the matter now stands, than to express, as I do most emphatically, my condemnation of conduct which is, as I believe, wholly without justification or excuse, and leave on record the facts, as they have been disclosed before me, to be employed, if it shall be proper, in aid of any desire there may be to relieve the legal profession of the odium which_ truly.or untruly, it'is so largely charged, rests upon it.
