clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search		 search for:
clear space
white space
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 396   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

306 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
matter between him and the party, his client, to whom he is
responsible for the faithful discharge of his duty."
Now the agreement charged in this case has direct reference
to the conduct of 'the cause, and comes clearly within the scope
of the authority of the attorney, thus distinctly announced by
the Court of Appeals. The agreement between the complain-
ant and the attorney of the plaintiffs at law was, first, that the
suit at law should not be further prosecuted until there was an
ascertained deficiency of the assignments to pay the claim.
Secondly, that when the judgment was entered, the attorney of
the plaintiff agreed with the complainant's attorney that if he,
the complainant, objected to the judgment, it should be stricken
out; and thirdly, that when the complainant did object, his
objection was obviated by the assurance of the plaintiff's attor-
ney that the judgment should make no difference in his course
in the collection of the debts assigned, and assured the com-
plainant that no execution should be issued upon the judgment
until the assignments could be collected, and that time should
be allowed for that purpose. It seems to me that, assuming
the existence of this state of facts, there can be no doubt of the
power of this Court to interpose to prevent the premature en-
forcement of the judgment. If the facts are true, as charged
in the bill, the attorney of the plaintiff at law not only took a
judgment contrary to his express agreement with the complain-
ant at law, but prevented the latter from applying in due time
to the County Court to have it stricken out, by assuring him
it should not have the effect of varying their said agreement
in any manner whatever. It is believed to be quite clear that
if an application had been made to the County Court to strike
out this judgment within the time allowed by law and the prac-
tice for such motions, and the Court had been satisfied of the
truth of the statements contained in this bill, that the applica-
tion could not have been denied. But the complainant was
prevented from making such motion, by an assurance that the
judgment should not be used to his prejudice, and that the
agreement in reference to the claims assigned should be* fully
and fairly carried into execution, and hence his right to the aid

  		clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 396   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.

Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!

An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  August 16, 2024
Maryland State Archives