115 Iowa 71 | Iowa | 1901
Lead Opinion
I. Appellant’s first contention is “that the court did not have jurisdiction to try the case, for the reason that the proceedings were not commenced in the manner provided by section 325 of the Code.” Said section is as follows: “Sec. 325. Proceedings, How Begun. The proceeding to remove or suspend an attorney may be commenced by the direction of the court, or on motion of any individual. In the former case, the court must direct some attorney to draw up the accusation; in the latter, the accusation must be drawn up and sworn to by the person making- it'.” One Penfield mailed to Hon. F. H. Helsell, judge of the said court, in vacation, an affidavit charging the defendant with certain unprofessional conduct as an attorney, and asking that he be disbarred. Judge Helsell ordered that the affidavit be filed, and the defendant notified to appear on the second day of the next term.- On
It is said that he did not move the lower court • to retax the costs, and therefore cannot be heard to question their taxation to him in this court, but, as we have seen, there is more than costs involved in the judgment.
Appellee’s counsel contend that we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal, for reasons stated, and renews the motion to dismiss the appeal heretofore passed upon. We see no reason for changing o*ur former ruling.
For the reasons stated, th-e judgment of the district COUrt ÍS REVERSED.
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting). — I think the judgment in this case no more in legal effect than a dismissal of the proceeding and the taxation of the costs to the wrong party. The judgment for costs, being for less than $100, is not appeal-able. Matters of reproof or reprimand are exclusively within the discretion of the court administering them, and can form no part of a legal judgment in any case. For these reasons, the appeal should be dismissed.