Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1831-02-04

Mir. GARLAND said, that having voted on n former
occasion ag 'inSt tire indefinite postponement Of the
Till under consideration, and intending to vote for rhe
pOstponemcut now, lac tepmed il a tuv which be
owed to himself and to the House to state "a sccinct
~ as he could the reasons which influenced his couse
Shcn inc motion was made to postpone the bill, he
voted against the posponement, not because ho was
sauShed with us provisions, but because he was will
Ing TO afford tn its friends the opportunity OF perfect
uS the oi, 50 as to proven, the evils intended to be
fehedcd' and at The same time guard against the
great inconvenience and difficulty which the bill as
thcn trumed, was circulated To produce. He had
he said another which influenced him to vote
as nc dni-he was always willing to meet every Gues-
ton OF general Importance us merits, aud meet the
responsibility winch his vote incurred Mr. G.. said
he should vote at this time for the rostponemcpt-
hrst, because II Es bill ner.torious il should
not be ln1unhered with the amendment OF the gen
teman from Amea, eSenlptlng the attornes practi-
sing IN the courts of that county, from its operation
Tor ne was opposed to the LEGAL aud partial operation
ot general laws-secondy, because the friends of
the bill not having introduced any amendment IN !,
he was opposed to the extent of its provisions ne
traught with difficulty and Inconvenience to creditors
Mr. Garland said that when the gentleman from
o.un5wicN offered ms amendment, proposing to
1lnH the operation of the bill TO where the cred
ltor resided, IN the county in which the ,,idpmer was
rendered he voted for and would have Va, ed for IT'S
passage, because he saw no reason why an Attorney
should receive the money Of his client and rhorgc
commission for the collection, where the client could
as conveniently receive 1T himself, and there was no
necessity for the interference of the Attorney
MIR IL SAID, that as the amendment did prevail
he was left to vote upon the bill in unrestraiued
form, and should vote against it. lie said he was On
posed 70 the bill, because hp regarded il rs fcilrht
with incalcnlabc msciict-not 1t affected the
personal interest of the Attorney himself, for he
could receive money well on the authority of an
order as on the iuigment-hnt as it afec:cd the
convenience OF creditors, residing IA distance from
their debtors, and the convenience and responsibility
OF coeC ing Officers This bill, he said Goes To RI,
strict attornies from receiving money on any debts
placed IN their hands for collection, which Judg-
meats are rec"vcred except by authority of written
order from the creditor. The Inconvenience and
"e%at'on of such law to distant creditors who have
placed their debts in he hands of atorules for col
lection, wall be oppressive III the extreme because il
VII enable Specializing officers 10 hold money recei-
yaI executions for such creditors pleasure the
Judgment which gives the authority will cease 10
give it, and the future authority to collect Will he
derived from the written order--the sheriff then is
to look to the order ITSELF securing his safety in
the payment of the money, and must rlv no
clearly satisfied that the order is genuine. How is
he to be satisfied of the authority of such order par
tlcuaTly when drawn by creditor residing perha;s
IN New York, Philadelphia or Baltimorc and whon
nc has never seen and does not know? This want of
certainty, on the part of the sheriff officer would
afford complete Justification to him in wrhholdinr
the money until he was clearly and individually salts.
ned 1t may also he made excuse, on the part of
officers inclined to retain the money TO be very diff
cult to satisfy, and no doubt will frequently be done
W hat remedy will The creditor have in such cosno
lie must either himself. or send witness
who knows his hard writing, to prove the execution
OF the order To enable his Attorney to draw the nm
ney from the officers hands The Ienrth rf t;mo
necessary 10 do this and attendant expense neeJ not
be stated; but If witness attends, the officer NAV
sill refuse, and the creditor driven 10 the nccnssitv
OF motion: he must then have a witness in atteu-
dalcc to prove the execution of tho order IN cnurf.
because. the creditor resides ont of the county
demand must DC mndc the officer, before motion
can be sustained for the of the money The
Attorney only make the demand on the authority
OF the ORDER the necessary consequence is the order
must be proved. The veXatiou delay and oppression
which such state of things must produce, would be
lnsuiierabe. Another effect of the bill, will ba TO
place the collecting officers in a STATE Of great and
unreasonable responsibility; because if he paws the
money to the order he IS to look the order for his
protection against all subsequent demands for the
sane debt. It then, in the lapse Of time creditor
sh0Ild be base enough to deny the drawing of the
order to which the money paid, the sheriff IS
compelled 10 prove the execution of the order
20 shcw that he was justifable in paying the
money to X this where the creditor resided at a cons
leFabe distance would be generally difficult & some
times impossible and the officer on every failure of
troot involved with the second payment of the debt
This state or responsibility in all cases where the officer
had no personal knowledge, woud dive him to carry
the money into court suffer notion for in no 9th
er way would he be safe.
Mr. G. said it would produce incouvenie,ce +o tho
unfortunate debtors, because it often happened that
IN the absence OF creditors, they sought the Attorney
to pay I'm the mony, to commissions but if this
ON passed, III al such the money would have to
be paid 10 the officer and the commission with it.
which would be most unreasonable.
put IL Is SAD ny the gentleman who advocates this
Dh! that all this Inconvenience may be remedied by
the execution of powers Of Attorney from clients to
Their AttoTnies. am sure gentlemen Cannot regard
this as sufficient remedy when they consider the
inconvenience and expence for clerks fees county
seals, &C. attending the execution Of power which
must be recorded to make it sufficient, and that too
tor the collection of little debts
The gentleman from Pittsylvania argued that as
the law now is, as settled by the Court of Appeals
and the custom OF the country, Attorney who had
not instituted the suit and who not employed,
might mark his name the docket, and thereby b,
come authorized to control the judgment and collect
the debt. Mr.. 6. denied that this was the laws he
sHd where an Attorney ordered The rit, had posses
son Of The specially and fled IT, it was conclusive ev-
dencc that he employed aud authorized to receive
the money And this conclusion is drawn from the
TACT OF his having possession of the instrument itself
Mr.. g. said that no man could be employed with.
out the assent Of the Client, and no Attorney could
sustain his claim to be the Attorney by simply show.
ing he was marked to the suit his own act would not
be evidence for him, wouk it Justify the defen-
dant or sheriff in paying tho money TO him The
decision OF the Court Of Appeals does authorize
ne doctrine OF the gsocman: this decision refers ex.
pTessly to the authority being derived from the custom
OF the country, particularly when the Attorney had
possession OF the instrument.
GT