10 Vt. 471 | Vt. | 1838
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
It is well settled that the writing in question will, if the plaintiff is bound by it, defeat this action. Conant v. Patterson et al. 7 Vt. R. 163.
But the authority of an attorney to bind his client, by such a proceeding, may well be doubted. The powers of an attorney were considered in the case of Penniman v. Patchin, 5 Vt. R. 346. We are satisfied with the view there taken of this subject. And, although we are disposed to concede to an attorney a certain latitude of discretion in the discharge of his duty, yet we cannot admit his authority to bind his client, by a contract, which necessarily involves a broach of trust, and is, in effect, a discharge of the client’s debt, without satisfaction.
If there were any doubt on this point, there is clearly none as to the powers of the attorney’s clerk. Wo are not aware that any authority appertains to the station of an attorney’s clerk. He may, like other clerks, derive an author
Judgment affjrmed.