147 Ky. 457 | Ky. Ct. App. | 1912
Opinion op the Court by
Affirming.
W. J. Loughridge and others brought an action against Moses Burkhart in Harlan Circuit Court to recover one hundred acres of land which he claimed he held under an old title bond. In the Circuit Court there was a
An attorney has: no authority to compromise bis
Q. “About how long after this suit was dismissed, I mean the suit for a new trial, was it until you found out the order had been entered?
A. “I think it was shortly afterwards. My recollection.
Q. “About how many days?
A. “I don’t recollect.
Q. “How did you find it out?
A. “Just now I don’t recollect just how I received the information.
Q. “Who was representing you in that matter at the time you found it out? •
A. “Messrs.. Forester and H. E. Boss.
Q. “Did Mr. Boss tell you about it?
A. “I don’t recollect.
Q. “Do you remember where you were when you first heard it?
A. “No, sir; I do not.
Q. “Can you give any idea about how long it was after you and Mr. Boss were at Harlan until you found out this suit had been settled?
A. “No, I don’t recall now the time.
Q. “Did you and Mr. Boss return to Lexington together from that trip ?
A. “No, sir; not all the way.
Q. “What part of the way did you travel together?
A. “We took the sleeper at Hagan and came home.
*460 Q. “Did you talk with, him on the way about this matter ?
A. “No, sir.”
It is evident from this that Henderson knew of the compromise about the time it wag made. He was not only one of the plaintiffs but the one who had gone to Harlan to attend to the business. Notice to him was notice to his associates. The suit to set aside the compromise was not entered for over three years after he knew of it. The application came too late. The plaintiffs could not with knowledge that this compromise had been made rest on their oars for three years and then bring an action to1 have the orders set aside and the case restored to the docket. They were required to act promptly. They could not sleep on their rights. The delay in complaining of the attorney’s action was a ratification of his act.
Judgment affirmed.