Davidson v. Rozier

23 Mo. 387
Supreme Court of Missouri·Decided October 15, 1856·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Scott, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case turns on the question whether an attorney at law, as such, can make a compromise for his client. An attorney is authorized to do those things only which pertain to the conducting of the suit. He has a right to enter into a reference, but no right to make a compromise. (Huston v. Mitchell, 14 S. & R. 309; Dodds v. Dodds, 9 Barr, 315; Holker v. Parker, 7 Cranch, 452.)

The record offered in evidence does not show that there was a final judgment between the parties in the first action. There -was only a non-suit taken, which does not bar a second suit. The other judges concurring, the judgment will be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Davidson v. Rozier, 23 Mo. 387 (Mo. 1856).

23 Mo. 387 (Davidson v. Rozier) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rosenblum v. Jacks or Better of America West Inc.
745 S.W.2d 754 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1988)
Dwight v. Hazlett
147 S.E. 877 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1929)
Hallack v. Loft
19 Colo. 74 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1893)
Preston v. Hill
50 Cal. 43 (California Supreme Court, 1875)
Marbourg v. Smith
11 Kan. 554 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1873)