Smallwood v. Norton
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
This was assumpsit against the defendants, for neglect of duty, as attorneys at law. On the trial of the cause, before Emjery J. the plaintiffs proved by the testimony of John H. Richardson, that in the winter of 1835, he sent a demand in favor of the plaintiff against one Kimball, for collection.
Read the full summary
This was assumpsit against the defendants, for neglect of duty, as attorneys at law. On the trial of the cause, before Emjery J. the plaintiffs proved by the testimony of John H. Richardson, that in the winter of 1835, he sent a demand in favor of the plaintiff against one Kimball, for collection. It appeared that on Feb. 19, 1835, a suit was instituted by the defendants, who indorsed the writ, and that an attachment of personal property in the possession of Kimball was made by one Leavitt, a deputy sheriff, by whom the writ was served. The property attached was replevied from said Leavitt by…
1Opinion of the Court
*87The opinion of the Court was by
Weston C. J.
Richardson acted as the agent of the plaintiff, and his testimony was admissible as such. The defendants were engaged as attorneys to prosecute and collect the plaintiff’s debt. They were under legal obligation, to discharge this duty, with competent skill and fidelity. The object of the suit, instituted by them for the plaintiff, was to obtain judgment, and as the fruits of it, satisfaction of the execution, which issued. They had caused the debtor’s property to be attached ; and it was their duty, by all legal means, to make that attachment…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Sohn v. BernsteinSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1971
- Smith v. RoyerUtah Supreme Court · 1971
- Gardiner v. McDermottSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1878