Chambers v. Miller
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the county of Clearfield. David Miller against Isaac Chambers. Scire facias post annum et diem to revive a judgment. The defendant gave in evidence on the trial, the receipt of D. G. Fenton, attorney for plaintiff, written upon the fieri facias which had issued upon the judgment for the amount of the debt, interest and costs.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the county of Clearfield. David Miller against Isaac Chambers. Scire facias post annum et diem to revive a judgment. The defendant gave in evidence on the trial, the receipt of D. G. Fenton, attorney for plaintiff, written upon the fieri facias which had issued upon the judgment for the amount of the debt, interest and costs. The plaintiff then gave in evidence a judgment of Isaac Chambers against D. G. Fenton, with proof that Chambers had not paid the judgment of David Miller, but had entered satisfaction upon his own judgment against Fenton, and taken credit for so much upon the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Gibson, C. J.
An attorney has authority to receive his client’s debt in the ordinary course; but it must be through a medium not necessarily embarking it in his private transactions; which would be a breach of his trust. A collusive payment, which is essentially an act of embezzlement by the receiver, lets down the debtor to the level of the fraudulent attorney; and in Irwin v. Workman, 3 Watts 357, even a meritorious attorney was prevented, on principles of policy only, from interposing betwixt a client and his money, a claim entitled to peculiar…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Irwin v. WorkmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1834
- Miles v. RichwineSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1828
3Cited by3 opinions
- Watt v. BrookoverWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1891
- Rothman v. FilletteSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
- Hopkins v. ForsythSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1850