Moore v. Cohen
| Decision Date | 28 May 1901 |
| Citation | 38 S.E. 919,128 N.C. 345 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | MOORE . v. COHEN. |
ILLEGAL ARREST—ACTION OF ATTORNEY-LIABILITY OF CLIENT.
Where a creditor sent a claim to an attorney for collection iu the usual course of business, and the attorney, without his knowledge or consent, illegally caused the debtor's arrest in enforcing the collection, the creditor was not responsible therefor, the arrest not being within the scope of the attorney's duty.
Appeal from superior court, Halifax county; Starbuck, Judge.
Action by J. E. Moore against Charles Cohen. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Day & Bell, Thos. N. Hill, and T. C. Harrison, for appellant.
R. B. Peebles, for appellee.
This is an action by the plaintiff for malicious prosecution by illegally causing the arrest of plaintiff in a former action in which the present defendant was one of the plaintiffs and obtained judgment against the present plaintiff, who was one of the defendants. It was admitted by both parties that the claim on which the judgment was rendered was sent by Cohen & Son, of which firm defendant is senior partner, to R. B. Peebles, attorney at law, for collection, with no specific instruction as to collection, and in the usual course of business for collection; that before sending it, Cohen & Son had learned that the firm of J. S. & J. E. Moore had made an assignment; that the defendant had no knowledge of the arrest of J. E. Moore, or of the action before the justice of the peace, or of the order of arrest, or any other proceeding in said action, or of the acts of Messrs. Peebles and Harris (counsel in said action for Cohen & Sons), until years thereafter, when the present action was begun; and that the defendant never authorized or ratified said arrest, unless the sending theclaim to R. B. Peebles for collection, as aforesaid, amounted to authorization. The plaintiff contended that the acts of the attorney were the acts of the defendant, though done without his knowledge or express authority, and that the defendant was responsible for them; and in writing asked the court to instruct the jury that, upon the whole evidence, if believed, to answer the first issue "Yes." The court declined this request, and held as a matter of law that, upon the evidence, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, and that the issue should De answered "No, " and directed a verdict accordingly. It is true that a client is bound by the acts of his counsel in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stewart v. Cary Lumber Co
...servant which he did not advise, consent to, or participate in, and which was not justified by any authority he had given. Moore v. Cohen, 128 N. C. 345, 38 S. E. 919. 1 quote almost literally from the opinion, and certainly the substance of what was decided is given. Numerous authorities a......
-
Ickerson v. Atl. Ref. Co
...Sawyer v. R. R., supra; Powell v. Fiber Co., 150 N. C. 12, 63 S. E. 159; West v. Grocery Co., 138 N. C. 166, 50 S. E. 565; Moore v. Cohen, 128 N. C. 345, 38 S. E. 919; Central Ry. Co. v. Brewer, 78 Md. 394, 28 A. 615, 27 L. R. A. 63. "In doing such act the agent acts in response to his duty......
-
Stewart v. Cary Lumber Co.
...highway, and, as a necessary consequence, injuring the plaintiff, was within the scope of his employment, and yet the court held in Moore v. Cohen the principal was not liable for his attorney's unwarranted act. As said by Justice Blackburn, in discussing a somewhat similar tortious act, wh......
-
Dickerson v. Atlantic Refining Co.
...Sawyer v. R. R., supra; Powell v. Fiber Co., 150 N.C. 12, 63 S.E. 159; West v. Grocery Co., 138 N.C. 166, 50 S.E. 565; Moore v. Cohen, 128 N.C. 345, 38 S.E. 919; Central Ry. Co. v. Brewer, 78 Md. 394, 28 A. 615, L. R. A. 63. "In doing such act the agent acts in response to his duty as a cit......