Case Name: Casper Weist against Francis Lee
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1800-09
Citations: 3 Yeates 47
Docket Number: 
Parties: *Casper Weist against Francis Lee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Yeates)
Volume: 3
Pages: 47–47

Head Matter:
*Casper Weist against Francis Lee.
A defendant pays money to one of the attornies in the cause, (who is not the attorney on record, and who afterwards absconds,) after notice to the contrary, the payment is in his own wrong.
Rule to shew cause why satisfaction should not be entered in this action, on payment of 23 S| dollars into the prothonota-ry’s office.
Judgment was obtained on the 19th March 1798, for 375 dollars, and a fieri facias issued to September term following, which was returned nulla bona. Whereupon a testatum fi. fia. issued to Chester county, returnable to March term 1799, on which was returned goods levied.
The defendant filed an affidavit, that on the 15 th May 1798, he had paid to George Vaux, the clerk of Joseph Thomas, formerly one of the counsel in the cause, 210 dollars in part of the plaintiff’s demand, (Mr. Thomas Ross, the attorney upon record of the plaintiff, being then out of town,) and that on the 9th August following, he tendered to the plaintiff 235! dollars, the balance of the debt and costs, which he refused.
Mr. T. Ross,/w quer. ' Mr. Frazer, pro def.

Opinion:
Mr. Ross on his solemn affirmation declared, that shortly after he had issued the first execution, he met the defendant and told him what he had done. The defendant said, he had dealings with Joseph Thomas. He replied, his client was dissatisfied with Thomas, and he must not pay the money to Thomas, or any other person, but to himself. The defendant then answered, he would call shortly at his office and settle the debt. Thomas disappeared on the 3d August 1798.
The court said, that payments should be made to the atton ney on record, but there was no necessity of determining in this case, whether payments made to other counsel in the cause, might not under particular circumstances be established. Here there was express notice given to the defendant, not to pay to Thomas, by the person regularly entitled to receive the money; and this leaves him without an excuse for his conduct. He must abide the consequences.
Rule discharged.