Tullock v. Cunningham

1 Cow. 256
New York Supreme Court·Decided August 15, 1823·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Curia*

The authority of an attorney, who appears either fof a plaintiff or defendant, before a Justice, must be proved. But a parol authority is sufficient; and the attorney himself. is competent to prove it. The defendant below could not avaü himself of any declaration made by the plaintiff to the J i . Constable in relation to the execution. Even, admitting that j ha¿ told the Constable he must have the carriage hid in for him, and he would take it in satisfaction of the execution, R would be no defence in this suit, provided the sale was fairly conducted. If the Constable, in consequence of such a. direction, had returned the execution satisfied, he might, perhaps, have justified himself by this proof: but not having done so, it cannot avail the defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Tullock v. Cunningham, 1 Cow. 256 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1823).

1 Cow. 256 (Tullock v. Cunningham) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mobile Transportation Co. v. City of Mobile
128 Ala. 335 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1900)
Rickey v. Christie
47 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 278 (New York Supreme Court, 1886)
Cotton v. Hiller
52 Miss. 7 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1876)
Hirshfield v. Landman
3 E.D. Smith 208 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1854)