New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1878-12-25

which shal prove the power OF attorney to bring
the last mentioned section the conclusion to fol-
low, that the authority shall be evidenced by writing
enable the defendant to SVa hi@sS OF s terms IT,
between the attorney OF the plaintiff and the DEFEND
ant the former must produce written request OF such
plaintiff or his agent TO commence such action" or
written cogntiOn Of the authority OF the attorney TO
qured between attorney and cllenti No reason Tor
the distinction percevedt and as tue language OF the
section itself like the present. and as IT Is
founded upon the general rule that all authority CON
IL held that Mr. Kneelaud, unless this section OF the
statute is abrogaed, must bring himself Withh ts pro-
That nothing short OF written evidence of the power
to bring the action, before the adopon OF the Code
son, Howard's Pr Rep. 1910. In Howard agt. How
ard III Towards Pr Rep 800 1t was held " Inc pro
ducton Of authority of attorney to commence an
action Of ejectment apply 10 sults under the Sode; 10
statute requires written request to commence the suit
either by the plaintiff or his agent or written recog-
3O6l" The authority OF this decision has never been
questioned and It's soundness is expressly recognized IN
n %%f be r regarded as Settled law '
As this action Is IN substance and fact one for the
authority to It, or written to teGGgn" mo on
ms gS as an IS. rronnn Uy 'H is due how
to tine rights of the parties and the magnitude or
presented and urged upon the argument oud also be
examined. Had Mr. Kneeland any authority whatever
from the plaintiff, Stewart, either verbal or written,
TO his name, or has the said Stewart Ill any way
sInce ratified such usef
III the discussion and examination OF tins question OF
fact, which involves the careful reading OF mass oi
adays and papers submitted on this notion ana inc
very great difficulty Of determining and ascerthhne
truth, when evidence taken ex parte is so contra
dSioy the great neH Ci SO ye v an orney
bringing an of ejecmen OF his authority To use
has been most forcibiy Impressed upon my Judgment
Certain, il is, that the whole spirit and reason OF the
with the construction given to 1t; AMI II Tor
technical reasons, ALREADY 9SnsluCIeu ,Hen sh"iI
erroneous then The suggestion of the need of further
legislation upon the subject Of the evidence OF tie re-
tanner Of an attorney by client, is respectfully sub
mited The present motion, TO any one WAC READS lhe
papers used therein is most convincing aIsalneht o
ton of the evidence OF the retainer Oi MI hheeIahu ny
1t IS not claimed by Mr. Knoeland, that there any
direct employment Of him by Mr. stewart personally
man OF Proctorsye. VI. Mr.. Kneeland's line OF proof
is as ollows seeing letter published in The Neic- York
dr stewart he wrote as he claims June o. 1876 10 sald
Stewart asking IL lie would permit him (kneeiand) 10
use I S6 SaG to recover the estate Mr. Stewart il is
SAID showed this letter, his son Robert g. being with
use OF his name II is further claimed, that
upon several occasions between Inc year 1876 ana
iii NAV g. 1s7S the said Alexander Stewart admitted
TO various parties tbe employment OF both Chapman
1873, Kneeland wrote 10 Mr.. Chapman informing the
latter mat SUIT had been proggat amd al NV b on
man inclosing copy OF the summons anu complaint
II.
ana the summons and complaint TO Mr. stewart, who
WAS with what had been done, ana Iatned the
same Directed the line OF proof ls, 10 transactions
and interviews before suit was brought. and those 0c
curing IL had been commenced the same order
Did KHeeand wiitc on the 9th day Of June 1870, to
the plaintiff, Alexander stewart for authority TO use
established by Abraham Gruber. the managing clerk
of Mr.. Kneellnd, by Mr.. kueelsnd himself, by Nj
Chapman who claims that the letter was exhibited 10
MIN bv Mr. stewart and his Robert, by tic letter
Chapman to kneeland OF the date Of July o. 1876 IN
11,lf AN
his son Robert have Just brought me your letter OF
the oh uItlmo" aud by the AFFIDAVIT OF Mr. Henry H.
Armsden who declares letter purpOrting TO be written
by Kueeand to Stewart was shown TO him In August,
1876 In regard to the letter which Which Arms
described In the affidavit that "pur- |;
P DSG Det to be Written reply sd one
said Stewart, some one that stewart got TO write for
putt was a volunteer letter from Kneeland TO Stewart
suggested by the supposed publication Of one from the
Herald on the hand Mr.. Alexander Stewart. his
wife and members OF his family deny the reception
Lao been sent and received by Stewart 1t is impossible
conceive that It would not have been tho sueet OF
suited in the formal authority to Chapman and Knee
s late, 70 OF nSe r. ISIS was sent by Kneeand to
Chapman, and the extract therefrom stating the COM
WSeH also tlat Of August 10 ISIS was ccyed ncios
ing copy OF summons and complaint II Is impossible
10 CONCEIVE that Mr. Stewart would be going from
man 10 another exhibiting the extract from the letter
and the copy OF summons ana complaint, asking to
read and dlscatmng all knowledge upon the
subject AL this he undoubtedly did dc. as is abund
anty proved by the Oaths OF parties OF uDQuestOpaDe
to hereafter in discussion of the question whether
Stewart after tue acton was commenced form
the problem OF an original employment in 1915 and IN
solving that is not important to determine whether
Kueend on June g. 1876, wrote TO Stewart for author
inv 10 make him plin the SUIT u be brought, II
TO ascertain whether stewart gave the consent asked
tote the letter Of June o. 1876 that Stewart re-
ceyed it. the important fact still remains to be atrna
fay
spOnse, which would authorize not only an e1anna-
ton Of his caGs put formal E E0TeE 70 eaI1ae them
the letter OF Chapman 10 Kneeland OF the date OF
al Stewards request the OF Knetland
OF June g. 1876. II Stewart intended fully 60 EN-
tSst letter ave so declared Not word Of thai knd
does it contain, His relationship to the late Alexander
r. stewart gveu and he is several times styled Our
client" but not single word about the commencement
ycenf cSad PfOPe be SUIT hsd 3D
been determined upon, aud the whole matter was under
mans version OF the interview, which produced H. as
contained IN his affidavit Of September 81 1873, the
is Onspcuous In that afdav after stating the call
upon him by Stewart and his Robert and the exhibit
"Thsy both wished me 10 answer Kneeland's ieter-I
listened to the old mans story and p,Ote dorm from
his deposition herein, dated July g. 1876. and marked
Exhibit L. he then said he wanted ehould help him
and said that II would should be well paid. After
writing the ee Era @Sag 4f SU%9E GHage on
debtor time consultation and letter to Kneeland,
ST. From that time forward said Alexander has often
talked with about his claims heir the large
tate. and always inquiriDg how the matter was
going on. did not MAKE any further charges against
nm The event in order the letter OF July IL
1878" will be remembered that the letter OF July O.
1876, is from lawyer to lawyer. and claimed 10 be
written in response 10 one asking for power 10 do
specific act aud the affidavit made by the writer Of
letter. who knows that The point IN controversy the
direct authority TO commence an action. II such author
given IL should have have been given in plain
words and II intended TO be expressed by phrase
Our clent the counsel failed 80 TO In the letter
winch he wrote though therein, he swear, he states
the old mans story 1t III from mis- bps" and In the
affidavit which he has made IL is possible that Mr..