From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Countryman

Supreme Court of Alabama
Dec 14, 1933
152 So. 257 (Ala. 1933)

Opinion

6 Div. 224.

June 9, 1933. Rehearing Denied October 12, 1933. Rehearing Denied to Bar Commission December 14, 1933.

Oliver D. Street, Sr., of Birmingham, for petitioner.

Jim C. Smith, J. W. Gillon, Jr., W. H. Sadler, Jr., and Frank Bainbridge, all of Birmingham, for appellee.


Affirmed on authority of Ex parte Von L. Thompson, post, p. 113, 152 So. 229.

All the Justices concur.

THOMAS, J., having stated the nature and extent of his dissent in Ex parte Thompson and in Re Fite, ante, p. 4, 152 So. 229, 246, concurs in the foregoing.

On Rehearing.


Upon further consideration of this cause, the court is of the opinion that a sentence of suspension of the appellant from the practice of the law for eighteen months from October 12, 1933, is an adequate penalty to be imposed in this case. It will be, and is so ordered.

The judgment of the bar commission is, therefore, modified so as to suspend and restrain the appellant from the practice of the law, as above indicated, and for the time stated.

Judgment modified; application for rehearing overruled.

All the Justices concur.

On Application for Rehearing by State Bar Commission.


The judgment in this case is modified in accordance with the opinion of this court in Re Von L. Thompson, post, p. 113, 152 So. 229, rendered on consideration of the application for rehearing by the state bar commission.

All the Justices concur.


Summaries of

In re Countryman

Supreme Court of Alabama
Dec 14, 1933
152 So. 257 (Ala. 1933)
Case details for

In re Countryman

Case Details

Full title:In re J. H. COUNTRYMAN

Court:Supreme Court of Alabama

Date published: Dec 14, 1933

Citations

152 So. 257 (Ala. 1933)
228 Ala. 21

Citing Cases

Life Casualty Ins. Co. v. Bell

Countryman was not offered as a witness by the plaintiff, though present in court, and plaintiff, over…

Griffith v. State ex Rel. Scholl

William H. Morrow, Jr., Montgomery, for appellee. A disciplinary proceeding against an attorney is not a "law…