Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-10-07
must be set aside and annulled, and
judgment entered upon the verdict.
Reversed.
LoNGMAN V. BRADFORD.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
July %, 1899.

July 80, 1SSS
IF AN ATTORNEY AT LAW,
CONTRARY TO INSTRUCTIONS.
CAUSES HIS CLIENT TO BE
MADE A PARTY TO A SUIT. ANY
JUDGMENT OBTAINED THEREIN
MAY BE SET ASIDE BY PROPER
PROCEEDINGS.
The case appears from the opinion of
the court
The COURT says:
The facts of this case need not be
stated. 1t turns upon the proposition
announced in the headnote. Undoubt-
cdly, an attorney at law employed gem
orally TO represent party In par
ticular matter has authority TO bind
his client by any act which he may
lawfully do for the purpose of effect
uating the object for which he was en-
ployed. Section 4417 of the Civil Code
c0nfers upon attorneys at law author
lty 10 bind their clients in any action
o. Proceeding. by any agreement III re-
lation to the cause made i'll writing.
and in signing Judgments, catering ap-
peais,' etc. But this section must be
understood as applying to Tile conduct
OF attorneys In actions or proceedings
which they are either expressly or im-
piiedly authorized To bring or defend.
1t cannot properly be construed TO au-
thOrizc an attorney to bind his client
by bringing an action which he was
expressly and explicitly forbidden TO
institute. In the case now before the
court the attorney had no authority
whatever to make his clients parties to
the pending action, and consequently
they were not bound for the costs
thereof. The principle involved was
distinctly recognized by this court in
DohbinS V. Duprce. in which it was
held that: Though an attorney who
appears and confesscS judgment for Il
sui:nr Is, prlma !lcic. tn be taken as
having been retained by the sutton, yet.
II the fact be otherwise, the court will,
upon proof to that effect. set aside the
Judgment" The following extract
from Enc. ri. & Prac. Gao, is also per-
tincnt: THE clear weight OF authori-
~. and the rule Of law ON principle.
is that domestic Judgment rendered
against person, without any service
OF summons upon him. and without any
appearance by him, and only upon an
| appearance made by an unauthorized
| attorney. which appearance has never
| been ratified or confirmed is absolute
| " VOID as to the person for whom the
| appearance was made" III [he1 may
| thus show that the appearance was un
authorized. he may of course show that
IN" authority was special or limited
Thus the recital of the record may be
| explained by proof that the attorney
was not empowered to submit the de-
PENDANT TO the jurisdiction of the court
but only TO plead To the Jurisdiction. So
also where the judgment was agains,
| the plaintiff for costs. and he is sued
| upon II in another STATE lie may dc.
fend by showing that he gave no au-
| thorlty to institute ne suit. and had
| no knowledge thereof before judgmcn,
| was rendered." Or, III an attorney
| assuming without authority to act FOR
| a plaintiff. brings a suit and loses it,
| the defendant recovering n Judgment
| FOR costs. equity will restrain the en-
| forcemcnt of such Judgment in the
| same circumstances which would in
| ducc it 20 relieve the defendant I'm the
| converse case" In this state relief
may be granted on a motion to set the
| judgment aside. This was the course
| pursued by the plaintiffs in the preSen,
case. and the court below erred in dis
missing their petition on demurrer
Judgment reversed.