members bar in Montana

2007(Citations omitted.) We continued in Cosenza by quoting the following language from United States v. Clarkson, 567 F.2d 270 , 273 n. 3 (4th Cir.1977): In determining whether to disqualify counsel for conflict of interest, the trial court is not to weigh the circumstances “with hairsplitting nicety” but, in the proper exercise of its supervisory power over the members of the bar and with a view of preventing “the appearance of impropriety,” it is to resolve all doubts in favor of disqualification.

2007Id.

1944If the procedure sanctioned in this prior decision in 75 Mont. 122 , 242 Pac. 421 , is bad, it might be well for this court to point it out in its decision in this case, and thus indicate to the members of the bar *209 that in the future this court would look with disfavor on the method followed in that case and in this for claiming these attorney’s fees as damages.

1944If the procedure sanctioned in this prior decision in 75 Mont. 122 , 242 Pac. 421 , is bad, it might be well for this court to point it out in its decision in this case, and thus indicate to the members of the bar *209 that in the future this court would look with disfavor on the method followed in that case and in this for claiming these attorney’s fees as damages.

1944Silver Trucking Co. , 4 Cal.2d 198 , 47 P.2d 733 )." The initial proceedings against Niewoehner are without precedent to sustain them and are void for this reason: There was nothing pending in this court when Niewoehner presented his petition for filing, nor was there anything pending before us when he mailed his circular letter to the members of the bar of the state.

1944Silver Trucking Co. , 4 Cal.2d 198 , 47 P.2d 733 )." The initial proceedings against Niewoehner are without precedent to sustain them and are void for this reason: There was nothing pending in this court when Niewoehner presented his petition for filing, nor was there anything pending before us when he mailed his circular letter to the members of the bar of the state.

1939(In re Young, 77 Mont. 332 , 250 Pac. 957 .) The power of the court over the members of its bar is inherent, over and above any statutory provisions.

1939(In re Young, 77 Mont. 332 , 250 Pac. 957 .) The power of the court over the members of its bar is inherent, over and above any statutory provisions.

1935The last sentence of section 9388, Eevised Codes 1921, relating to bills of exceptions, provides that “documents on file in the action or proceedings may be copied, or the substance thereof stated, or a reference thereto sufficient to identify them may be made when necessary to present the objection.” Counsel for the plaintiff cites and relies upon the following statement uttered by this court in the case of Emerson v. McNair, 28 Mont. 578 , 73 Pac. 121 , 122: “The bill of exceptions in this case recites that the records and files in the action were offered and used on the hearing, but neither

1935The last sentence of section 9388, Eevised Codes 1921, relating to bills of exceptions, provides that “documents on file in the action or proceedings may be copied, or the substance thereof stated, or a reference thereto sufficient to identify them may be made when necessary to present the objection.” Counsel for the plaintiff cites and relies upon the following statement uttered by this court in the case of Emerson v. McNair, 28 Mont. 578 , 73 Pac. 121 , 122: “The bill of exceptions in this case recites that the records and files in the action were offered and used on the hearing, but neither

1922There must be, and is, a limit to the patience of this court, and again the members of the bar are cautioned that the rules of this court “should be honored by observance rather than dishonored by breach.” (Brockway v. Blair, 53 Mont. 531 , 165 Pac. 455 ; Wing v. Prasher, 59 Mont. 10 , 194 Pac. 1106 ; Cornner v. Hamilton, 62 Mont. 239 , 204 Pac. 489 ; see, also, Samuell v. Moore Mercantile Co., 62 Mont. 232 , 204 Pac. 376 .) It not being necessary for decision of this ease, we express no opinion as to whether a reformation of the contract so as to have it run to the plaintiff, “E.

1922There must be, and is, a limit to the patience of this court, and again the members of the bar are cautioned that the rules of this court “should be honored by observance rather than dishonored by breach.” (Brockway v. Blair, 53 Mont. 531 , 165 Pac. 455 ; Wing v. Prasher, 59 Mont. 10 , 194 Pac. 1106 ; Cornner v. Hamilton, 62 Mont. 239 , 204 Pac. 489 ; see, also, Samuell v. Moore Mercantile Co., 62 Mont. 232 , 204 Pac. 376 .) It not being necessary for decision of this ease, we express no opinion as to whether a reformation of the contract so as to have it run to the plaintiff, “E.

1922There must be, and is, a limit to the patience of this court, and again the members of the bar are cautioned that the rules of this court “should be honored by observance rather than dishonored by breach.” (Brockway v. Blair, 53 Mont. 531 , 165 Pac. 455 ; Wing v. Prasher, 59 Mont. 10 , 194 Pac. 1106 ; Cornner v. Hamilton, 62 Mont. 239 , 204 Pac. 489 ; see, also, Samuell v. Moore Mercantile Co., 62 Mont. 232 , 204 Pac. 376 .) It not being necessary for decision of this ease, we express no opinion as to whether a reformation of the contract so as to have it run to the plaintiff, “E.

1922There must be, and is, a limit to the patience of this court, and again the members of the bar are cautioned that the rules of this court “should be honored by observance rather than dishonored by breach.” (Brockway v. Blair, 53 Mont. 531 , 165 Pac. 455 ; Wing v. Prasher, 59 Mont. 10 , 194 Pac. 1106 ; Cornner v. Hamilton, 62 Mont. 239 , 204 Pac. 489 ; see, also, Samuell v. Moore Mercantile Co., 62 Mont. 232 , 204 Pac. 376 .) It not being necessary for decision of this ease, we express no opinion as to whether a reformation of the contract so as to have it run to the plaintiff, “E.

1922There must be, and is, a limit to the patience of this court, and again the members of the bar are cautioned that the rules of this court “should be honored by observance rather than dishonored by breach.” (Brockway v. Blair, 53 Mont. 531 , 165 Pac. 455 ; Wing v. Prasher, 59 Mont. 10 , 194 Pac. 1106 ; Cornner v. Hamilton, 62 Mont. 239 , 204 Pac. 489 ; see, also, Samuell v. Moore Mercantile Co., 62 Mont. 232 , 204 Pac. 376 .) It not being necessary for decision of this ease, we express no opinion as to whether a reformation of the contract so as to have it run to the plaintiff, “E.

1922There must be, and is, a limit to the patience of this court, and again the members of the bar are cautioned that the rules of this court “should be honored by observance rather than dishonored by breach.” (Brockway v. Blair, 53 Mont. 531 , 165 Pac. 455 ; Wing v. Prasher, 59 Mont. 10 , 194 Pac. 1106 ; Cornner v. Hamilton, 62 Mont. 239 , 204 Pac. 489 ; see, also, Samuell v. Moore Mercantile Co., 62 Mont. 232 , 204 Pac. 376 .) It not being necessary for decision of this ease, we express no opinion as to whether a reformation of the contract so as to have it run to the plaintiff, “E.

1895(Coyote etc. Co. v. Ruble, 9 Or. 121 ; Hawley v. Bank, 20 Nev. 410 ; Malony v. Hunt, 29 Mo. App. 379 ; Lancaster v. Waukegan etc. Ry., 24 N. E.

1895(Coyote etc. Co. v. Ruble, 9 Or. 121 ; Hawley v. Bank, 20 Nev. 410 ; Malony v. Hunt, 29 Mo. App. 379 ; Lancaster v. Waukegan etc. Ry., 24 N. E.

1895(Coyote etc. Co. v. Ruble, 9 Or. 121 ; Hawley v. Bank, 20 Nev. 410 ; Malony v. Hunt, 29 Mo. App. 379 ; Lancaster v. Waukegan etc. Ry., 24 N. E.