Williams v. Alexander
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Lonoke Chancery Court; John B. Martineau, Chancellor; In the absence of special authority, an attorney cannot bind his client by a compromise of a suit, even though such compromise has been consummated by consent judgment. Weeks on Attorneys at Law, 2d Ed. 471, 474; 3 Am. & Eng. Enc. of L., 2d Ed. 358; 32 Ark. 74; 7 Cranch, 426; 32 Ark. 346; 16 Am.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Lonoke Chancery Court; John B. Martineau, Chancellor; In the absence of special authority, an attorney cannot bind his client by a compromise of a suit, even though such compromise has been consummated by consent judgment. Weeks on Attorneys at Law, 2d Ed. 471, 474; 3 Am. & Eng. Enc. of L., 2d Ed. 358; 32 Ark. 74; 7 Cranch, 426; 32 Ark. 346; 16 Am. Dec. 506; 55 Mo. 405; 159 Mass. 221. See also 69 Ala. 547; Weeks ' on Attorneys at Law, 2d Ed. 453; 43 N. J. Eq. 45 ; 141 N. Y. 302; 10 Phila. 118. Not only was the attorney unauthorized, but that the decree was by fraud and collusion…
1Opinion of the CourtBattle, J.
On the 16th day of April, 1897, Q. T. Webster and Gabe Williams entered into the following contract:
“This indenture made this 16th day of April, 1897, by and between Q, T. Webster and Gabe Williams witnesseth that said Q. T. Webster hereby rents unto said Gabe Williams the following described lands, to-wit: the S. E. Ya of N. E. Y> section 27, township 2 N., range 10 W., in Eonoke County, Ark., for the term of four years, commencing Jan. 1, 1897; the said Gabe Williams agreeing to pay the sum of $100 per year, for which he, Gabe Williams, has given four several notes for $100 each. And it is…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Saleski v. BoydSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1877
3Cited by3 opinions
- Parker v. SimsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1932
- Parker v. NixonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1932
- Turner v. TurnerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1953