Atwater v. Hadley
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota
In equity. Julinah P. Atwater was the owner in June, 1875, of notes and mortgages of the value of $3,100, which she placed in the hands of “Hadley’s Law and Collection Agency” for collection; R. S. Hadley assuming to act for the same. On the death of one Seely, a brother-in-law, she claimed to own with her brothers and sisters an interest in the farm and farm property previously occupied by the deceased.
Read the full summary
In equity. Julinah P. Atwater was the owner in June, 1875, of notes and mortgages of the value of $3,100, which she placed in the hands of “Hadley’s Law and Collection Agency” for collection; R. S. Hadley assuming to act for the same. On the death of one Seely, a brother-in-law, she claimed to own with her brothers and sisters an interest in the farm and farm property previously occupied by the deceased. A claim to the same was also made by the father and brothers of deceased. Propositions and consultations for settlement were frequently had and made during the summer of 1875, and for an…
1Opinion of the Court
NELSON, District Judge.
It must be conceded that the relationship of attorney and client, or principal and agent, existed, and was so understood by the parties, up to the time of the purchase. The burden is on the defendants to establish the fairness and equity of the transaction. The careful scrutiny which is bestowed by courts upon sales of this character between persons occupying fiduciary positions and their confidants is in accordance with public policy to prevent public mischief. The testimony in this case in my opinion brings it within the principle where the strict rule should be…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Howell v. RansomNew York Court of Chancery · 1845
- Brock v. BarnesNew York Supreme Court · 1863
- Dunn v. RecordSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1874
- Congden v. LeeNew York Court of Chancery · 1839