Adams's Assignee v. Roller
35 Tex. 711
Opinion
The only question we are called upon to notice, and which is decisive of the cause, is whether it is within the scope of the power of an attorney at law [712] to compromise the interest of his client by confessing judgment, with a stay of execution, and giving a lien upon land embracing the homestead.
It seems to be well settled that an attorney cannot compromise his client’s cause without his consent. (See 2 Tucker’s Com., p.—; Holker v. Parker, 7 Branch, 436.)
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Adams's Assignee v. Roller, 35 Tex. 711 (Tex. 1872).
35 Tex. 711 (Adams's Assignee v. Roller) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Early v. Burns
142 S.W.2d 260 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1940)