17 Neb. 207 | Neb. | 1885
Lead Opinion
A decision was made in this cause at the last term of this, court. In the opinion written by Chief Justice Cobb all the questions presented, except one, were passed upon. 16 Neb., 369. S. C. 20 N. W. Rep., 264. The question thus, omitted was as to the sufficiency of the attachment undertaking. The undertaking was overlooked, and supposed not to be in the record. Upon a motion for rehearing being filed, the undertaking was found and a rehearing granted upon the one question presented by the motion to discharge the attachment, for the reason that “ no undertaking has been filed as required by law.” The undertaking was signed by the plaintiff below by his attorneys, and by Colby & Hazlett as sureties, the signatures being in this form:
“Y. A. Crowley,
“ By Colby & Hazlett, his Att’ys.
“ Colby & Hazlett.”
The contention by plaintiff in error is that the undertaking is defective for two reasons: First. Because the-surety is a firm, and not an individual. This objection is.
The law is well settled, both in England and this country, that while attorneys are prohibited from signing such undertakings, yet if they do sign them they are bound thereby. The law prohibiting such signing is based upon considerations of sound public policy. An attorney should never allow himself to be placed in the attitude of encouraging litigation. Nor should he allow himself to become personally interested in the cause of his client by assuming any personal liability. When he does become thus interested a strong inducement is offered to seek and take unjust and unfair advantage of the opposite side without reference to the justice of his cause. The law is also for his protection. When interested in behalf of a client whose cause he believes to be just, he is liable, unless restrained by a due and proper respect for the law, to assume liabilities which may become very embarrassing to him. The law very properly admonishes him to avoid such liabilities. Weeks on Attorneys, § 119, and cases there cited.
But considerations of public policy again say that if an. attorney does sign such obligations he is bound by his
The district court did not err in overruling the motion to discharge the attachment, and its decision is therefore affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Dissenting Opinion
I dissent on the proposition first discussed in the opinion. I think the undertaking is void, the surety not being a natural person.