Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 19.pdf/217

 THE GREEN BAG

194

NOTES OF THE MOST IMPORTANT RECENT CASES COMPILED BY THE EDITORS OF THE NATIONAL REPORTER

SYSTEM

AND

ANNOTATED

BY

SPECIALISTS IN THE SEVERAL SUBJECTS (Copies of the pamphlet Reporters containing fall reports of any of these decisions may be secured from the West Publishing Company, St. Paul, Minnesota, at 25 cents each. In ordering, the title of the desired case should be given as well as the citation of volume and page of the Reporter in which it is printed.) ATTORNEYS. (Admission.) N. C. — Another case affirming the power of the legislative branch of the government to establish qualifications and regulate the admission of attorneys, is that of In re Applicants for License. 55 S. E. Rep. 635. The court in this case reviews numerous authorities on the proposition, and holds that a statute pre scribing the qualifications for admission to the Bar does not violate the constitutional provision that the legislative, executive, and supreme judicial powers of the government shall be kept separate and distinct, and the further provision that the general assembly shall have no power to deprive the judicial department of any power or jurisdiction which rightfully pertains to it. The court calls attention to the fact that the only decision which squarely declares that a statute regulating the admission of attorneys is uncon stitutional is the case of In re Day, 181 Illinois 72, 54 N. E. Rep. 646, and remarks that the force of this decision is much weakened by the dissent of two judges. In this connection it is interesting to note that the court holds that under the North Carolina statute regulating the admission of attorneys which requires applicants to file a certificate of good moral character signed by two attorneys practicing in the court, one who com plies with the formal prerequisites and shows himself to have a competent knowledge of the law is entitled to admission without an investiga tion by the court of his general moral character. ATTORNEYS. (Right to solicit Business.) Tenn. — The practice of so-called ambulance chasers in soliciting business is roundly condemned in the recent case of Ingersoll v. Coal Creek Coal Co., 98 S. W. Rep. 178. In this case attorneys who had through their representatives solicited and secured a number of personal injury claims against a corporation, sought to collect their fees from the corporation which had made settlement with the claimants. But, as the cases had been procured by the attorneys by the personal solici tation of their representative, the court held that they were without redress against the corporation, though the contract of employment of the attor neys was free from fraud or misrepresentation.

Such acts constitute an impropriety inconsistent with the character of the profession and incom patible with the faithful discharge of its duties. The court denounces the practice of so-called ambulance chasers and says that it cannot agree to the propositions that in these latter days a spirit of commercialism has lowered the standard of the legal profession; that the practice of law has become a " business " instead of a " pro fession." and that it is now allowable to resort to the practice and devices of business men to bring in business by personal solicitation, under such facts as shown in the case at Bar. AUTOMOBILES. (Care required of Chauffeur.) Mo. — The increasing use of automobiles makes it important to determine the care to be exercised by chauffeurs while driving on streets and high ways. A recent case wherein such rule is stated admirably is that of McFern v. Gardner, 97 S. W. Rep. 972, wherein the court says: " The auto mobile is a modern invention, propelled by steam, electricity, or gasoline, and attains a very high rate of speed. It is of great weight, made very strong, and. in a collision with an ordinary vehicle, is capable of smashing it without serious damage to the machine itself, and while it has equal rights on the road with the ordinary vehicle, it is a sort of menace to the traveling public, and, on account of the danger to others incident to its operation upon public highways, the chauffeur in charge is bound to exercise care commensurate with the risk of injury to other vehicles and pedestrians on the road, and this risk of injury, it seems to us, is as great if not greater than is the risk of injury to vehicles and pedestrians traveling on and across streets upon which street cars are operated by electric power, and we can see no reason why the chauffeur in charge of an auto mobile traveling on a public highway in a populous city should not be held on the same degree of care in respect to pedestrians and other vehicles upon the street as is a motorman in charge of a street car running on a public street. In view of this position the court holds that it is the duty of a chauffeur driving an automobile on a public highway in a populous city to keep vigilant watch