Dearborn v. Dearborn
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was a special action of the case, brought to recover damages against the defendant, fat negligence, as an attorney, with respect to a demand of the plaintiff against one Thom,as Peck, placed in the defendant’s hands by the plaintiff for collection.
Read the full summary
This was a special action of the case, brought to recover damages against the defendant, fat negligence, as an attorney, with respect to a demand of the plaintiff against one Thom,as Peck, placed in the defendant’s hands by the plaintiff for collection. On the trial of the cause, upon the general issue pleaded, befoie •the Chief Justice, at the sittings here after the last November term, it was in evidence that, in June, 1807, the plaintiff, having a demand against the said Peck, caused the same to be lodged with the defendant, then an attorney regularly practising in the Courts of Common…
1Per curiam
It is said that the prosecuting of a scire facias was the commencement of a new suit, which was no part of the duty of the defendant. But it is our opinion that, when an attorney undertakes to collect a debt, he is bound to sue out all process necessary to the object. A scire facias against bail is not to be considered a new suit, (a) It is a regular step in the collection of the original *290demand; and the attorney cannot excuse himself for neglecting seasonably to sue it, unless he give notice to his client, and request specific instructions, where he entertains doubts of its expediency In the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Parker v. DowningMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1816
3Cited by4 opinions
- Tobler v. NevittSupreme Court of Colorado · 1909
- Bougher v. ScobeyIndiana Supreme Court · 1864
- Marco v. LowSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1867
- Brissette v. RyanMassachusetts Superior Court · 2013