Reinholdt v. Alberti
1 Binn. 469, 1808 Pa. LEXIS 69
Opinion
We have no doubt. If the attorney has done wrong, he is answerable for it. But undoubtedly b) the practice of Pennsylvania, the authority of the defendant’s attorney is competent to restore an action after non pros. The authority of an attorney is not limited here in the same manner that it is in England. For a payment to the plaintiff’s attorney, long after judgment, and without execution, has been held good upon argument. Let the rule be discharged.
Rule discharged.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Reinholdt v. Alberti, 1 Binn. 469, 1808 Pa. LEXIS 69 (Pa. 1808).
1 Binn. 469 (Reinholdt v. Alberti) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Huntzinger v. Devlin
80 Pa. Super. 187 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1922)
Kissick v. Hunter
39 A. 83 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1898)
Swartz ex rel. Stuart v. D. S. Morgan & Co.
29 A. 975 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1894)
Whipple v. Whitman
13 R.I. 512 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1882)
Hageman v. Salisberry
74 Pa. 280 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1873)
Campbell v. Kent
3 Pen. & W. 72 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1831)
Wyckoff v. Bergen
1 N.J.L. 248 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1794)