Wilkinson & Co. v. Holloway
Supreme Court of Virginia
This was an attachment in chancery, brought by Wilkinson &f Co. against Holloway, in the county court of Brunswick, in November 1828. The bill alleged, that John Holloway being indebted to the plaintiffs 281 dollars for goods sold him by them at their store at Peters-burg, on an open account, they sent the claim for collection to W. Ruffin of North Carolina, where Holloway resided; and R/uffin, for some reason unknown to them, without their knowledge or consent, placed the…
Read the full summary
This was an attachment in chancery, brought by Wilkinson &f Co. against Holloway, in the county court of Brunswick, in November 1828. The bill alleged, that John Holloway being indebted to the plaintiffs 281 dollars for goods sold him by them at their store at Peters-burg, on an open account, they sent the claim for collection to W. Ruffin of North Carolina, where Holloway resided; and R/uffin, for some reason unknown to them, without their knowledge or consent, placed the claim in the hands of A. Glenn, an attorney there, for collection : that Ruffin or Glenn “ bonded the accountand Glenn…
1Opinion of the CourtBnocKEsamoiJfiH, J.
There is nothing in the record to shew, how far by the laws or established usages of North Carolina, an attorney at law who has possession of the specialty of a client, may bind him by a settlement of the debt with the debtor; nor does the answer of the defendant who had dealt with the plaintiffs in Virginia, suggest any difference between the law of that state and of this, in this respect. I shall therefore inquire, how the common law and our own law stand on this subject. The cases of Hudson v. Johnson, and Branch v. Burnley, establish the proposition, that an attorney at law who has…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Wilson v. RuckerCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1799
- Myers & Son v. Friend & ScottSupreme Court of Virginia · 1821