Case Name: SMALLWOOD STONE CO. v. SMALLWOOD
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1924-06-24
Citations: 2 Ohio Law Abs. 645
Docket Number: No. 18677
Parties: SMALLWOOD STONE CO. v. SMALLWOOD
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 2
Pages: 645–645

Head Matter:
No. 672
SMALLWOOD STONE CO. v. SMALLWOOD
No. 18677.
Supreme Court
ON MOTION TO CERTIFY
Pending on motion to order Jefferson Appeals to certify record.
Docketed June 24, 1924.
2 Abs. 436.
114. ATTORNEY AND CLIENT — 1. May an attorney defending a client in a damage suit bind his client by a compromise settlement?
2. Does the absence of the client and the opportunity to settle the case for an amount mjuch less than that asked for constitute such an emergency as will imply authority in the attorney ?
Attorneys — E. E. Erskine, for Stone Co.; Rogers & Cohen, for Smallwood; all of Stu-benville.

Opinion:
Epitomized Opinion
One H. brought an action against the Smallwood Stone Co. and Wm. T. Smallw'ood, seeking to recover from them (jointly) damages in the amount of $500,1)00.
During the pendency of this action (the officers of the Stone Co. being in California) a settlement was effected in which the plaintiff, EL, agreed to accept a judgment against Smallwood in the amount of $10,000, and release the Smallwood Stone Co. In this action, Smallwood seeks to recover from the Stone Co. the amount of $5,000 which he has paid on the judgment. He claims that the settlement of the case of H. included an agreement with the Stone Co.'s attorneys by which said attorneys bound the Stone Co. to pay the judgment. The Stone Co. denies this agreement to bind them. The Common Pleas directed a verdict for the Stone Co.
The Court of Appeals overruled the Common Pleas, on the grounds that an emergency existed which gave the attorneys this authority. The Stone Co. claims error on the grounds that no such emergency existed.