The judgment of the court was pronounced by
Thе plaintiff alleges that, in 1839, he рlaced a note in-the hands of the defendant for collection, and that the defendant has made no effort whatever to obtain a judgment, but hаs permitted it to become extinguished by prescription; that he has retained .the notе in his possession and has transferred it for his own benefit; and by his professional neglect and misconduct has made himself liablе for its amount. The defendant pleaded the general issuе. Pie also pleaded that die plaintiff had failed to furnish thе evidence necessaiy to establish the validity of the note; that he had offered to return the note; and has alwаys held it subject to the plaintiff’s order. He deposited the note with the clerk of the court at the time of filing his answer.
The noto is dated, in October, 1836, is payable ai 'twelve months, and is not
As the instrument was not negotiable, it was not subject to the prеscription of five, but of ten years. It is, therefore, not yet рrescribed. Whiting v. Prentice,
In an action of this sort it is incumbent on the plaintiff to show that he had a valid сlaim, which has been impaired or lost by the negligence оr misconduct of the attornеy. The evidence does not establish the existence now, or at any time, of a valid claim in favor of the plaintiff аgainst Amelia Gordon or her succession.
It is, therefore, decrеed that, the judgment of the cоurt below be reversed, and that there be judgment for the defendant, with costs in both courts.