Carter v. Talcott
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action of debt, on jail bond. Plea — Non est factum, and in bar, that the debtor went at large by the permission of the creditor. These issues were joined, by agreement of parties, to the court. The plaintiff proved the execution of the bond, and the existence of the record set forth in his writ, and the escape.
Read the full summary
This was an action of debt, on jail bond. Plea — Non est factum, and in bar, that the debtor went at large by the permission of the creditor. These issues were joined, by agreement of parties, to the court. The plaintiff proved the execution of the bond, and the existence of the record set forth in his writ, and the escape. The defendant proved the execution of a writing, dated before the escape, signed by one Jackson A. Vail, a clerk in the office of L. B. Peck, Esq. the attorney of record, agreeing, in substance, not to put the bond in question in suit for three months from the date of the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Phelps, J.
It is well settled that the writing in question will, if the plaintiff is bound by it, defeat this action. Conant v. Patterson et al. 7 Vt. R. 163.
But the authority of an attorney to bind his client, by such a proceeding, may well be doubted. The powers of an attorney were considered in the case of Penniman v. Patchin, 5 Vt. R. 346. We are satisfied with the view there taken of this subject. And, although we are disposed to concede to an attorney a certain latitude of discretion in the discharge of his duty, yet we cannot admit his authority…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Foster v. WileyMichigan Supreme Court · 1873
- Granger v. BatchelderSupreme Court of Vermont · 1881
- Sheffer v. B. B. Perkins & Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1910
- Barthelmas v. Fidelity-Phenix Fire Ins.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1939