Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1868-12-26

the judgment. Z" wi,hou, prejudice 10 the rights
Of either party
il will be sees that the jsyaaspa b neg
di9Sstinuaaee, and in 10 asaak esoe1uA&
the rishsssf the parties; ssd we are On q q
OPTION ,tnesa airsrpV ion cassonay 49,
tisse hiessit ~itha0 aV speclp sss sisl
II1ced. Dis . s", sosP iee6e u .ary ssr
elSeriy S1shis nc ssps q the herslf svG
ofsn attssney snd S1Iesslhl TO 8e ju( |.;ss1
manareornt ~ cssBes ID Cotvls. 70 Wee.
dell los. 5th Randolph s3s. sresers .. C.
u. 10. s-cs~~n 3s5. Statutes of ". r.,
lss,-3, 4oa.) In 6sh Coven, he Court say
a. Where m attorney 10 retsised, We yin moi
look far special authority 70 do - erdisavy
an act of practice As the disconsinusaee Of ths
cause" lst il 10 said the ssipslstles resehsd
to the cause 81 sesiUs ITSELF ed eoaId sos,
therefore. lie sustained. The eosrt held thai
the attorneys had no power 70 exesste r..
lease, OF to do :syshisg th.. wYsld rsses ia
fnixe 20 much 81 the stipuistioa % acksowi.
edged satisfaction Of The clain.
But because The stipalasSos eostaiaed eef.
tain matters beyoed the power Of the stses-
neys, with the Court below refused 20 -.
fnrce. the COsrt 10 osalls, s1leg eOosinsssts
. reflection, to resch the eonclusios urIed hy
the plaintiff in error. that, therefore, the Couri
| below had no right 10 esforre ssch parts 81
the stipulation ~ were clearly within the pow.
er NJ an attorney. lf,he stipulation had pro.
vidcd solely for discon tinuasce, these, could
be no question that II would have beca right
full. aud, - only that much Of the stipalatioa
was enforced. no sstislacsery rsasoss have
been presented showing the Court might mol
enforce the rightfi paris Of the stipalatioa ,ssd
decline enforcing The wrssRfsl. In csses d
this character, II may be stated In gessml,
| that II the client Is prejudiced by the acts OF
his attorney, he must take his remedy aeaiusj
the attorney rather than the opposite party,
| and there is no prctcnse in this case, bat that
Simpsons attorneys are abundantly able "a
respond to any damages that he nay hare SOS.
tanned BY their wrongful acts.
On the other matter Of the error, to wit
the refusal Of the Count n permit ]. d. Nix Il
further prosecute the suit Of Simpson, Il Ia mol
necessary that any opinion should be here ex.
pressed; aud the Court the moro readily decliaes
to determine this question as its decision
would require an investigation into the divers
matters aud interests of the several parties Ia
the suit, as they appear from the plesdings,
and the attitude and connexion Of counsel with
these divers matters and interests. Perhaps
It may not he too much 10 say that the whole
case leaves rather bad taste in the mouth,
and that there are some features in the stipu-
laton, and some in the acts and attitude Of in.
| teryenor's counse! Of doubtful propriety: but
, rs they doubtless arose from lncoasiderateness
rather than any improper motive, the Court il
not disposed to further comment in the prem.
Uses. Upon the whole therefore, We ars I'll Of
the opinion that the Judgment below should b
affirmed.
ORDER.
This cause came on tOhe heard on the trans.
| cript of the record from the District Court oil
the First Judicial District, holding terms q:
ordered and adjudgcd by this Cont, that the
judgment Of said district Court In this cause.
be aud the same is hereby affirmed With costs
in this Court and the C0nrt below. And he
it further ordered that mandate Tissue from
this Court to said District Court fur the execu-
ton of this iudOncnt'