The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-02-15

s.sss. y. cssr srs- Il 70 - sasadsd; and that susnd..
- X. ssss q x. other which, i is known 70 the Court IT.
hat eth<r never authorized, either expressly or by implica-
ss.s 49,, .s's so :. ~. srgs ssiia.i %,I Sss, 20 ai sss a ioi , N:i, a.a
one q the defsndant, appeared In Lppman vs.. Jorlson,
q Cod. Req. :. 10, nots) nor in Hammond vs.. Har.
rs Nov ssi nor In Crane vs.. French. n wend.' aii:s}
crssstrcok Va. Mccrudis, 70 w, 437.j Nor is this case
asfesdsnts, the Court there holding that they could not
90 eshind TIE record 70 inquire into his authority to APP
pear Is 70 Hsmmssd vs.. Harris, and sterns vs.. bentley,
MecruaI.s. 70 w.aa, 4sf D Blodsstt vs.. "cOnslin and Ar.
mold, % How, xa2l
son-yohnIon employed an attorney to appear for both
defencsnts, and confessed Judgment against both. The
attorney vas irresponsible, asd the Judgment WAS set
torney had no authority 20 confess Judgm snt against
Bro~n. This must have been on the principle that John
siso said that there vas reason TO believe there
was eolusion between johnson and the attor.
ney and the plaintiff He si.o remarked that Jonn.
debtor act, the declaration being served on him, but THAT
IN the case before him, Judgment was against both de-
allowed 10 use the nsne Of Gehrnsn, in the onsr Of jsdg.
msnt, Judgment must be not ~ on The Joint debtor act
wen sin a. E Eve esaS' II ds Sns, oS hsa spss ass sf n I ,Ss sai asS
In Blodget ". Conklin and Arnold 20 How. i42) m
attorney had appeared, In good faith on his part, for
stand as security, but said that III COLLISION between
the plaintiff or his attorney and Arnold, or the attorney
whom he employed, had been satisfactorily established,
the case would have been entirely different, and the
Judgment would In that case he set aside as against
Conkhn.n This 10 but . common instance Of the aver
sion which the Law always shows 10 fraud and GOWN.
So, In the ease Of Sterne W. Bentley, 40, Justice
Paige noticed that "fraud or collision between the plain
till and the defendant, Mclaughlin, or his attorney, Was
denied by the plaintiff And In Denton W. Noycs, 70
J. r.. 49, Ch. J. Kent said az there had been any col
fusion between the plaintiffs, or the attorney for the de-
PENDANT, II would have altered the case; but that mono
was shown or prstended.n Here the collision was be-
tween the plaintiff and one defendant, and IL the Court
should sanction the amendment allowed 1t special term,
IL would make itself also their instrument.
In Green, &c, w. Beales q Caima. asa and Sc John,
&c. VI. Holmes go wend. co., the Court refused TO set
aside q judgment confessed against two partners, on Q
warrant OF attorney signed BY one: but there tho ono
~confessing the judgment alone moved to set II aside,
and II was good AZ 10 him; and IL might be that the
other had assented, or did not choose 10 object. There,
too, An attorney must have appeared for both. Bat an
individual not an attorney cannot appear In court for
another without the express authority Of that other.
II this judgment should be sustained, II would open
the way to one partner TO give preferences as he chose,
to any number OF creditors OF the 6rm, against the wishes
Of the other, and no produce tho same effect ~ an -.
signment to . trustee for such purposes, which the part
ner could not have made. II would also encourage con.
cealment and contrivance against those TO whom the
partner owed confidence and good faith. IL the partners
cannot agree, II Ia best TO allow all the creditors to come
in equally, or the most diligent in the fair and regular
practice Of the Law to succeed.
The order should be 20 modified a. 10 withdraw from
the defendant, Everson. the right to make any amend
ment, and so as to set ASIDE the Judgment ~ against tho
defendant Gehrman, with costs Of the appeal.
II. @. Van Worst, counsel for appellant; J. w. Nye,
counsel for respondent.