Case Name: ROGERS v. DARE, ET AL.
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1832-10
Citations: 1 Wright 136
Docket Number: 
Parties: ROGERS v. DARE, ET AL.
Judges: JUDGES — HITCHCOCK AND WRIGHT.
Reporter: Reports of cases at law and in chancery, decided by the Supreme court of Ohio, during the years 1831, 1832, 1833, 1834.
Volume: 1
Pages: 137–138

Head Matter:
GUERNSEY COUNTY,
OCTOBER TERM, 1832.
JUDGES — HITCHCOCK AND WRIGHT.
ROGERS v. DARE, ET AL.
Bill of sale — possession—fraud—attorney at law — secrets of clients — witness.
An attorney at law cannot be compelled, and will not be permitted, to give evidence of what his client lias confided to him; but as to matters, the knowledge of which he derived from other sources he must testify.
If a bill of sale is made of personal property, and the possession does not follow the sale, that will not make the bill fraudulent of itself; it is only a circumstance of fraud, and if the transaction is shown to be honest, it will be good.
Trespass for tearing down a steam engine, &c. Plea, not guilty, with notice of property in the engine in the defendant.
. The defendant, Dare, was a manufacturer of steam engines in Zanesville. One Harding, of Cambridge, had an engine, in Cambridge, out of repair, and applied to Dare at Zanesville, to put it in repair. Harding’s credit being bad, Dare refused to do the work, unless he would give him a lien on the engine for the amount of repairs, and also for the balance of a former account, for machinery. It was so agreed, and a contract was entered into in writing for Dare to do the work. Harding executed to Dare a bill oí sale for the engine, &c., for the consideration of six hundred dollars, the •estimated value of .the repair and balance, dated 2d October, 1830. Dare executed a lease of the engine to Harding, on the same day, for four years, at the rent of one hundred and fifty dollars a year, and covenanted that if the rent was paid, the engine should be Harding’s at the end of the term. The engine was repaired on the 7th February, 1831. Harding being indebted to the plaintiff, gave him a bill of sale of the same engine (he having knowledge of Dare’s lien) to secure him and certain other creditors, and the plaintiff gave Harding a power of attorney' to procure the engine for him, &c. The rent to Dare not being paid, Harding sent to Dare to come and *take the engine, as he would be unable to jiay. Dare, with [137 his hands, the other defendants, came on to take the engine, and when arrived within Guernsey county, Harding arrested Dare upon a writ, and while he held him in custody', told him again that the engine was his, and to go and take it. The plaintiff had said he had sent for Dare to get him where he could sue him. The defendants, Dare and his hands, went in to take down the engine, and while at work, were stopped by Harding and some of his securities for other claims, backed by a mob, and driven from the work. For this attempt to take down the engine, the suit was brought.
In the progress of the trial, Tracy, an attorney at law, was examined as a witness, and was asked what Rogers told him of the sale to Dare.
This was objected to, as disclosing the secrets of the client.
Tracy and Hubbard, for the plaintiff.
Beebe and Culberston, contra.

Opinion:
BY THE COURT.
An attorney at law cannot be compelled, and will not be permitted, to disclose what.his client, as such, has confidentially confided to him; but his situation, as attorney at law,, does not excuse him from testifying to facts affecting his client, the-knowledge of which he derived from other sources.
THE COURT, to the jury. The claim of the plaintiff rests upon, the assumption that the bill of sale to Dare being unaccompanied with the actual possession of the engine, is void. The position is-not sound. The court has frequently decided that the want of actual possession following a bill of sale of personal property, was not fraud in itself, but only a circumstance of fraud. There is nopretence here but that the transaction between Harding and Dare' was a bone fide one, and the plaintiff certainly was not deceived by the possession of Harding, nor thus induced to give credit upon the supposition that possession was evidence of property, because he-had notice of Dare's claim.
Verdict and judgment for the defendant.
• The engine had been taken possession of by Hutchinson, a security for Harding to Rogers, Dun had brought suit for it. After the decision above, it was agreed, that if Hutchinson took the engine to Dun in Zanesville, and paid the costs the suit should be discontinued.