Milligan & Son v. Ala. Fertilizer Co.
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Montgomery, Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbard, This action was brought by A. L. Milligan & Son, suing as partners, against the Alabama Fertilizer Company, to recover compensation for professional services rendered by plaintiffs, as attorneys at law, in the collection, or attempted collection, of a claim against J. B. Harper. The complaint contained only the common counts, and the only plea was the general issue.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Montgomery, Tried before the Hon. John P. Hubbard, This action was brought by A. L. Milligan & Son, suing as partners, against the Alabama Fertilizer Company, to recover compensation for professional services rendered by plaintiffs, as attorneys at law, in the collection, or attempted collection, of a claim against J. B. Harper. The complaint contained only the common counts, and the only plea was the general issue. On the trial, as appears from the bill of exceptions, the plaintiffs offered in evidence the deposition of M. E. Milligan, a member of their firm,…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCLELLAN, J.
It appears to be well settled law, that with respect to a claim placed in the hands of an attorney by a commercial agency, such as that of R. G. Dun & Co., for collection, the claim having been delivered to the agency by i$ie creditor for the purpose of collection, the attorney is the agent of the collecting company, and not of the owner of the claim.—Hoover v. Wise, 91 U. S. 308; Bradstreet v. Everson, 72 Pa. St. 124; Lewis v. Peck, 10 Ala. 142; Stephens v. Badcock, 3 B. & Ad. 254. And it follows, of course, that the attorney, being thus the agent of the agent, and not in privity with the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Hoover v. WiseSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Lewis v. PeckSupreme Court of Alabama · 1846
- Hill v. MorrisMissouri Court of Appeals · 1884
- Cleaves v. StockwellSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1851
3Cited by3 opinions
- Irvin v. StrotherSupreme Court of Alabama · 1909
- Dentzel v. City & Suburban Railway Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1900
- In re CarneySupreme Court of Vermont · 1899