Talk:Green v. Elbert

This page is part of a WikiProject to improve the United States Supreme Court case pages. To participate see the project page.

Information about this edition
Edition:	Green v. Elbert, States for the district of Colorado against Samuel H Elbert, William E Beck, Joseph C Helm, Merrick A Rogers, Lucius P Marsh, and J Jay Joslin, claiming damages in the sum of $50,000 April 18, 1887, he filed his amended complaint in said cause, alleging a conspiracy on the part of defendants Rogers, Marsh, and Joslin to bring about a disbarment of plaintiff for filing a bill in equity, in the discharge of his duties as solicitor of one Mrs Newton and her husband, against Joslin, making certain charges against defendants Rogers and Marsh; and that the defendants Elbert, Beck, and Helm, who were at the time judges of the supreme court of Colorado, confederated and conspired with defendants Rogers, Marsh, and Joslin to carry out and consummate the original conspiracy, and entered judgment disbar ring the plaintiff accordingly The complaint purported to be brought and was claimed to be sustainable under sections 1979-1981, Rev St, in connection with section 5407, pp 347, 348, 1047, Rev St 1878 Demurrers were filed on behalf of defendants Elbert, Beck, and Helm, and also of defendants Rogers, Marsh, and Joslin, which, upon argument, were sustained by the court, and judgment entered for the defendants, July 27, 1887 On the 3d of October, 1887, plaintiff filed his bond, which was duly approved, and a writ of error was allowed and issued, and on the same day he filed a stipulation that the record might be filed in this court, and the cause be docketed at any time during the October term, 1887, of the court Citation, returnable to October term, 1887, was taken out and served On the 20th of April, 1888, the plaintiff filed in the circuit court in said cause his praecipe for transcript of record, which was accordingly made out, as directed, and certified by the clerk of that court May 5, 1888 On that day plaintiff wrote to the clerk of this court, as follows: 'I herewith send you a record in a case of my own Will send you a docket fee and a stipulation to submit under rule 20 in a few days Please send me two blanks for entering the appearance of attorneys for both parties' This letter and the transcript reached the clerk May 10, 1888, and he replied: 'Yours of the 5th inst, also transcript of record in case of Green v Elbert et al, duly received I inclose two blank orders for appearance as requested I notice what you say as to furnishing deposit on account of costs and sending stipulation to submit case under the 20th rule' Nothing further appears to have been done in the premises until on January 7, 1890, plaintiff in error wrote to the clerk as follows: 'I find on looking over my books at New Year's that I hd f orgotten to send you a docket fee in the case of Thomas A Green v Samuel Elbert William E Beck, Joseph C Helm, Merrick A Rogers, Lucius P Marsh, and J Jay Joslin This record was sent up from the US circuit court for the district of Colorado, a year or more ago, on writ of error If you have not docketed the case please do so at once, and inform me by return mail I herewith send you draft on New York for $25' Upon the receipt of this letter, January 13, 1890, the transcript of record was filed, and the clerk wrote on the 15th: 'Yours of the 7th inst, inclosing draft on N Y for $25, on account of deposit in case of Green v Elbert et al, duly received, and I have docketed the case No 1,541 for Oct term, 1889, entering your appearance of counsel for pl'ff in error' To this plaintiff in error relied January 20th: 'Yours of the 15th inst at hand I have signed, and herewith return my appearance in the case of Thomas A Green v Samuel E Elbert et al, No 1,541' .
Source:	Green v. Elbert from http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/137
Contributor(s):	BenchBot
Level of progress:	Text being edited
Notes:	Gathered and wikified using an automated tool. See this documentation for more information.
Proofreaders: