Engle v. Chipman

• Decision Date: 17 October 1883
• Citation: 51 Mich. 524,16 N.W. 886
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: ENGLE v. CHIPMAN.

16 N.W. 886

51 Mich. 524

ENGLE v. CHIPMAN.

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 17, 1883

In an action against a prosecuting attorney for legal services rendered by plaintiff as his assistant, proof that defendant promised to tell the supervisors that the bill was right, and ought to be paid is no evidence of a recognition of personal liability, or of the actual rendering of the services.

A general delegation of his powers by a prosecuting attorney is against public policy, and is illegal; and it can furnish no basis which a court will recognize for any action by the person to whom the powers were delegated for personal compensation for his services.

A prosecuting attorney is vested with a personal discretion as a minister of justice, and not as a mere legal attorney, and he must act impartially, as well in refraining from prosecuting as in prosecuting. He must guard the real interests of public justice in behalf of all concerned, and he must not become entangled with private interests or grievances in any way connected with charges of crime.

A prosecuting attorney may, perhaps, employ assistants in ways not involving his official discretion or responsibility, but this discretion can only be delegated on special grounds where an assistant has been provided for by law.

Error to Huron.

Engle & Engle, for plaintiff and appellant.

Winsor & Snover, for defendant.

CAMPBELL J.

Engle sued Chipman for legal services claimed to have been rendered as agent of Chipman in matters relating to his duty as prosecuting attorney of Huron county. His claim was in substance that having declined to act in certain cases specified without general authority this authority was given him and he acted accordingly. His bill of particulars contained 10 items of services in criminal proceedings. He testified that he showed his bill to Chipman, who, after examining it, told him to file it with the board of supervisors, and if they raised any question about allowing the bill he would tell the board the bill was right; that plaintiff had rendered the services and should have his pay. This was denied by defendant. The jury found a small verdict in plaintiff's favor, but rejected most of his claim. We do not think it necessary to go at length into the question presented by plaintiff, because, as pointed out by counsel for defense, the record does not show any case made out at all. We find nothing to show that any services...