
    *Ex Parte Robert W. Collins.
    Attorneys — Right oí Clerk to Practice in Same Court. —The Clerk of a Superior Court of Law cannot be permitted to practice as Attorney In the Conrt of which he is Clerk, notwithstanding his license to practice Law in all the Courts of the Commonwealth.
    The applicant is Clerk of the Superior Court of Daw for Dewis county, and is also licensed to practice Daw in the Courts of the Commonwealth. He applied to the said Superior Court to be permitted to practice as Counsel and Attorney in that Court, on taking the oaths prescribed by Daw. That Court adjourned to the General Court, the following questions : 1. May the Clerk of a Superior Court of Daw, who is also licensed to practice as Counsel and Attorney in the Courts of the Commonwealth, be admitted to practice in the Court of which he is Clerk, on taking the oaths prescribed by Daw ? 2. Does the admitting such applicant to take the oaths of- Counsel and Attorney, and to practice as such in the Court whereof he is Clerk, operate as a virtual abandonment of his office as Clerk, so as to render the same vacant,, or may the functions of both offices be discharged by the same person, at the same time ? The application of the Clerk was founded on this proposition, that the Act of Assembly  only prohibited the Clerks of County Courts from appearing- and pleading as Attorni,es, in their own Courts, and, therefore, did not apply to him.
    
      
      Attorneys— Right to Practice. — In Ex parte Hunter, 2 W. Va. 144, it is said: “It Is the duty of the court not to permit any one to practice as an attorney at its bar who is not by law entitled to do so. (Collins’ Case, 2 Va. Cas. 222.)"
      
      The principal case is also cited and approved in Bowers v. Bowers, 29 Gratt. 702. See monographic note on “ Attorney and Client" appended to Johnson v. Gibbons, 27 Gratt. 632.
    
    
      
       1 Rev. Code of 1819, ch. 76, § 13.
    
   Opinion and judgment of the Court:

The Court is unanimously of opinion, that the duties of Clerk of a Superior Court of haw, and of Counsel and attorney in the same Court, are incompatible with each other, and that they interfere so much one with the other, that there is danger lest they might not both be executed with impartiality and honesty, and therefore this Court doth decide, that, according to the Common Raw of the land, the Clerk of a Superior Court ought not to be permitted to take the oaths prescribed by Raw for Counsel and Attornies, nor to practice as such in the Court of which he is Clerk.

This decision renders it unnecessary to «decide the second question. 
      
       5 Bac. Abr. p. 204, tit. “ Offices,” &c. letter K; 4 Inst. 100.
     