, 1879-05-03
THE COURTS.
. eatch Of Appellate Court De-
cisions.
e,mething for the Creditors OF the
s''''~ Beehlyo Bank.

EnmafUluEs Ava %NN~ |
Beehive Bank. |,
p.oo1d Of Judgments, New Suits, Divorces
Criminal matters, Ito.
zo,,s,on Of good deal OF Interest on the
- ri attorneys to compromise suns WIS
pow. go yesterday morning by Judge Blodgett
1eua. of Pierce ct al. vs.. Brown. In NO
IL 49, 49, 1916. the plaintiffs recovered ludg-
seu .o.;nst Brown for 54,730. D. Z. h.
aea. .rt was the attorney for the plaintiffs, and
o.-,nramcnt was soon after made between
.1..-t ~ and uarkins, one OF the Defendants oy
o.s Nt:",, Horkins paid Stewart S4,150 In COM
"l "s.,se and satisfaction OF the whole luog-
p. was entered by the attorney. Yesterday |
w.. Na+,on was made to set aside this satisfaction |
49,. ,rronna that Stewart had no authority |
~ - euc,, compromise. None Of the money |
80 him was accounted for, as ne
-ss-o,dcd with It, According to 1he
.,.dsnuted facts. Stewart was only employed 70
..:,r ,hc suit ind collect the amount, and nau
~ w. onfnority, either express or implied to ae-
~ 49, 1ess than the full amount due In saustac-
.;on Twas conceded that the entry OIL 1uit
s.,;sfsctiou under the circumstances was Voio'
sn+ Il was insisted by defendants that the pay
nm, made to Stewart should be applied, as iar
- :, wonld 90, toward the satisfaction ol tne
.,.,ro and that the Judgment should remain IN
torcc only as to the s64o still unpaad.
The Judge, in disposing Of the motion, said the
,..,. -r,e uel established, that an attorney au-
.so,,1od IN collect simply had NO power to com
-.,,,ea Rut the question was Whenef ue
p1on'ss: .rs~a en,it,cd to have the satisfaction
p'1'n'!A7 49,, he authorized to collect
set aside entirely a'u Us e..o,+ Tho evi.
the full amount OF 'ns 1u1EuS .ot.a
dence showed tnat AaA
os'e' aood faith. and that Stewart
III ~. .,a. he had right to make COM
Represented ',lne =. .aas a sdrni,ted that If the
promise. 1t haa oeen "u n.4 -, scc,rnt
money had been paid 10 o1e"n. w h.ra
sran e ,hc client never got it, it would have
60. .o,a navment. Stewart, under his pow
oeen Rooo p4, .,s h.va -oc-ived less than the
ers to col1cc'' eo"'o - ~, +ha ipdoment hut
full amount anu appheu wv ~ ,.:.'. hoa oo;d
he had no power to release na1 A'u' "a" pHs1
.,,o uho1a sims due the satisfaction must nase
t;,a,,r Hinder all the circumstances,
been oloolns. rs. ,ra-o entitled to have the
then, the p1ainI'ne -. :. ne Same time only
satisfaction set ASIDE, oas ~ ;nSorse The amount
on condition that they "ou1u ',na,t On that it
received By Stewart on 1he 1uue ~ .i'a ,1nnad mr.
would remain In force ONLY as w 11'"
ton Of $G40.
THE AFFILIATE eo" A.,
,,a+ vexferea; afternoon, and announced tnelr
dao;:;oos in fhe following fifty cases:
II lake shore u Michigan Southern han~
,oaa comnanv vs. Bellink; petltQn 1or 1eaeat
io1 dsn,ed
7s Hrnndt IS. Dean; decree affirmed
81 Volleite Is Hill; affirmed.
- GRAY rs, Arnew affirmed.
"a Nnrnhv rs Like Shore q Mlcnlga1
Southern Railroad Company, ueeee
and affirmed, .f,r,,ad
25H. Kusseil rs; "na'11s, nns,. " " Corne11. re-
- Village OF Hyoe 1a'A 'o'
versed and remanoea. f-or nenrv Conn
ii. DllleS IS. 1eople,a Sad sa1e A'oNA-
IT,; reversed anu lenanuSu, e.s1ao;acer. affirmed.
81 McNamey vs.. eeh,sSM,d' t7;.,,od
Cnt vs.. rae.' rainasr' af,;rmaI
-. City vs. 1ouus, anla nt;rmed
4. a; E.tv vs.; vaufsGn, ~ nesGi,r. a afHrmea
q. Far"e1i a1 vs.. nuf4nI nnSi, ~ s;on1 citv Y,
-. f'rst s:a5 Nauonai n,s., p@nn rsI1,ande5 ~ ~'
Flower, reversed an4 e;.a ren.:alaqsu n4Wr1,ed
81. s'oout!cn ". at ~ 49, s.,7 ranandef