Case Name: Tullock against Cunningham
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1823-08
Citations: 1 Cow. 256
Docket Number: 
Parties: Tullock against Cunningham.
Judges: 
Reporter: Cowen's Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 256–256

Head Matter:
Tullock against Cunningham.
The power" appear'ftn^ei° ther party in a may^by paroi; and may te proved by the attorney h™Sdeht, oná justice’s judgdefence, 1 that tfld th^corf' stahle, who tioP upoiTthe judgment, to dant’s carriage for as much as and°that, Pit did not fetch the amount oi the judgment, to have it bid. jig would, take it in satisfaction for the which ^ was ac-accordingly The plaintiff may recover the balance. Such a proceedmg, it justify the con-turning™ the --tion sat-
Oil certiorari to a Justice’s Court. Debt, in the Couix below, on a Justice’s judgment, for $26,06, by Cunningham against Tullock. Mr. Crookshank, áttorney at law,- appeared for the plaintiff; His authority being called for by the defendant, he admitted that he had no written power, but sta- • ■ r ted, under oath, that he was authorized and employed by the plaintiff to attend to this suit.- The Justice decided that this was sufficient; An execution had been issued upon tho judgment, and a carriage of the defendant sold under it for an<l bid in for the use of the plaintiff, under his direCtion to the Constable, that he should sell the carriage for as mucb as be could get; and if it did not sell for the amount of the judgment, to get some person to bid it off for him. And he understood the plaintiff to say, that he would take the carriage for debt and cost. The trial was by jury, whó found á verdict for the plaintiff, for the balance proved to be ¿ue Upón the judgment; *■ jo
John K. Paige, for the plaintiff in error.
»fí• Cí oolcsjtarilc, contiti*

Opinion:
Curia*
The authority of an attorney, who appears either fof a plaintiff or defendant, before a Justice, must be proved. But a parol authority is sufficient; and the attorney himself. is competent to prove it. The defendant below could not avaü himself of any declaration made by the plaintiff to the J i . Constable in relation to the execution. Even, admitting that j ha¿ told the Constable he must have the carriage hid in for him, and he would take it in satisfaction of the execution, R would be no defence in this suit, provided the sale was fairly conducted. If the Constable, in consequence of such a. direction, had returned the execution satisfied, he might, perhaps, have justified himself by this proof: but not having done so, it cannot avail the defendant.
Judgment affirmed.