|
View the H-Law Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-Law's November 2009 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] View the Next Message in H-Law's November 2009 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] Visit the H-Law home page.
Studying an American case from the Revolutionary period, in which attorney A, representing defendant B against plaintiff C, also was simultaneously representing different plaintiff D against same defendant B, with respect to same subject matter. This was an action in debt under a statute allowing any person to sue for a certain penalty, to be shared between plaintiff and the state. It is surmised that D v B was a sham suit intended somehow to interfere with the real suit C v B. Would appreciate any references that would indicate whether such a stratagem was common or unusual, or whether or not it would have been regarded as a breach of the attorney's duty to the court. Paul Axel-Lute Deputy Director & Collection Development Librarian Rutgers University Library for the Center for Law & Justice 123 Washington St. Newark NJ 07102-3026 axellute@andromeda.rutgers.edu (973) 353-3151 http://www-rci.rutgers.edu/~axellute/ fax (973) 353-1356
 Humanities & Social Sciences Online 
|