188 So. 677 | Ala. | 1939
Bill in equity to set aside and cancel a judgment at law, valid on its face, because the complainant has a meritorious defense to same which she failed to present because of fraud, accident or mistake. It is essential to the equity of such a bill that the averments of same should show diligence on the complainant's part and negative negligence as to the failure to present her defense in the law court.
It may be conceded that the bill sets up a good defense to the action at law, but it, in effect, shows that the failure to present same was due to the neglect or failure of her employed attorney who failed to keep her informed of the condition of the case and trial and the result of same. An attorney being an agent duly authorized, his acts are those of his client. The client is therefore bound by all the acts of his attorney in the course of legal proceedings in the absence of fraud or collusion, and he can not plead the negligence of his attorney as a ground for relief. Albert Hass Lumber Co. v. Gibson,
Moreover, we think the bill of complaint presents a plain case of laches. Bills of this character have had applied to them, by way of analogy, the statute of limitations under Section 6608 of the Code of 1923. Manegold et al. v. Beavan,
The trial court did not err in sustaining the demurrer to the bill of complaint.
The case chiefly relied upon by appellant, Alabama Chemical Co. v. Hall,
Here, it does not appear that she and her husband both signed the note or were both sued jointly. She was sued alone and there was service upon her, her husband merely recommending an attorney whom she employed and who was her agent.
The decree of the circuit court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
THOMAS, BROWN, and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.