There are many English statutes relating to the powers, duties, and responsibilities of attorneys, which have no force in this country. Most of our courts have their own rules of practice bearing somewhat on this subject; (i) but these have no binding force in other courts. The rules of the Supreme Court of the United States are, however, binding on the Circuit and District Courts of the United States, so far as they are applicable to them.

(h) Jenkins v. Gillespie, 10 Sm. & M. 31. And see Scarborough v. Reynolds, 12 Ala. 252, and Wade v. Powell, 31 Ga. 1.

(hh) Hazlett v. Gill, 5 Rob. 611.

(hi) Wolf v. Trochelraan, 5 Rob. 611; Sloo v. Law, 4 Blatch. C. C. 268; Walton v. Sugg, Phill. L. 98.

(i) The nature and scope of the authority of attorneys at law in this country are considered in Holker v. Parker, 7 Cranch, 436; Erwin v. Blake, 8 Pet. 18; Union Bank of Georgetown v. Geary, 5 id. 99 , United States v. Curry, 6 How. 106; United States v. Yates, id. 605; Smith v. Lamberts, 7 Gratt. 138; Lewis v. Gam-age, 1 Pick. 347; Jenney v. Delesdernier, 20 Me. 183; Jewitt v. Wadleigh, 32 id. 110; Slackhouse v. O'Hara, 14 Penn. 88; Walker v. Scott, 8 Eng. (Ark.) 644; Smith v. Dixon, 3 Met. (Ky.) 438; West v. Raymond, 21 Ind. 305; Ricketson v. Compton, 23 Cal. 636; East River Bank v. Kennedy, 9 Bosw. 543; Flanders v. Sherman, 18 Wis. 575; Hathaway v. Brady, 26 Cal. 581; Ryan v. Martin, 18 Wis. 672.