Cornelius P. Coughlan v. United States

Coughlan ' moves for our summary judgment of reversal of his appeal from a judgment disbarring him from practicing in the Alaskan courts. As in the case of Stringer v. United States, 9 Cir., 225 F.2d 676 , Coughlan contends that the general savings provision for existing statutes does not leave in the district court the power to execute the judgment. As seen, we have held the contrary in the Stringer case.

To the contentions in the Stringer case, Coughlan adds that the later disbarment statute contains a specific savings clause which controls the provisions of the general savings clause. What he relies upon is the provision in the amendatory statute that:

including the prior disbarment act.

His contention is that while the judgment rendered March 23,1955, before the amending act, remains a valid judgment until June 30, 1955, it being on that date under appeal in this court with the right to seek certiorari from the United States Supreme Court, in recess in June, the proceeding is obliterated if by this entire procedure the judgment has not become final before June 30, 1955.

We do not believe that the Alaska Legislature intended we should make such an absurd construction of the…