Dalton v. West End St. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 20 May 1893
• Citation: 34 N.E. 261,159 Mass. 221
• Parties: DALTON v. WEST END ST. RY. CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

159 Mass. 221

34 N.E. 261

DALTON v. WEST END ST. RY. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 20, 1893

COUNSEL

D.F Kimball, for plaintiff.

W.B Sprout, for defendant.

FIELD C.J.

The only questions which have been argued relate to the authority of an attorney at law to make a compromise of a suit, to enter into an agreement for judgment, to file it in the cause, and to receive satisfaction of the judgment. The exceptions recite, in effect, that the attorney for the plaintiff was not authorized to make the settlement which was made, but was told by his client not to make it. In Railroad Co. v Martin, (March, 1893,) 33 N.E. 578, we declined to enforce specifically an agreement of compromise of a suit made by the attorneys, because it appeared that the attorney of the plaintiff, in making the agreement, had acted under a mistake of fact as to his authority. The reasons are stronger against enforcing such an agreement when, in making it, one of the attorneys has violated his instructions. In that case we declined to express an opinion whether, in this commonwealth, an attorney at law, by virtue of his employment, has authority to agree to a compromise of his client's suit out of court, but we said that the weight of authority in this country was that he had not any such authority. In that case the court also said: "If such a compromise is entered of record in the suit, and relates to the disposition to be made of the suit, it may be that, unless the court for good cause shown consents to the withdrawal of the agreement, it binds the parties to the suit; and that, if it has been made without authority, or improperly made, the attorney is answerable in damages to his client." In the present case the agreement was made a matter of record in the suit, and judgment was entered accordingly, and the judgment was satisfied. But even when such agreements are entered of record in the suit, courts have the power to grant relief against them, if made without the authority of the clients. They may refuse to enforce them, or treat them as void. See Township v. Keller, 100 Pa.St. 105; Whipple v. Whitman, 13 R.I. 512; Granger v. Batchelder, 54 Vt. 248; Holt v. Jesse, 3 Ch.Div. 177; Swinfen v. Swinfen, 2 De Gex & J. 381; Holker v. Parker, 7 Cranch, 436. In practice the assumed authority of attorneys of record to agree upon the amount of judgment to be entered, or to other disposition of the suit,...