Majority
p. 236M’Minn vs. Richtmyer. insisted that the judgment should be reversed, for the reason that Daniel’s authority to appear for Richtmyer was not properly or sufficiently proved. (2 R. S. 164, § 45, 2d ed.)
Headnote
On the return of a summons before a justice, A., as attorney for the plaintiff, buj> without having proved his authority as such, declared upon a note payable to the latter, which he produced. There was no appearance on the part of the defendant; and the cause immediately proceeded. A., being sworn generally in the cause, testified, among other things, that the note was left with him for collection. Held, sufficient evidence of his right to appear as the plaintiff’s attorney.A general authority to collect, implies an authority thus to appear.
Error to the Delaware C. P. Richtmyer sued M’Minn in a justice’s court; and on the return day of the summons, which was personally served, one Daniel appeared for the plaintiff, and declared on a promissory note made by the defendant payable to the plaintiff. There was no appearance on the part of the defendant, and Daniel immediately proceeded to trial. He was not sworn as to his authority to appear for the plaintiff, but on being sworn generally as a witness in the cause, testified that the note was left with him for collection ; and that while it was in his hands, the defendant acknowledged it, and promised payment. The justice thereupon rendered judgment for the plaintiff, which was affirmed by the common pleas on certiorari; and M’Minn sued out a writ of error
R. R. Menzie, for the plaintiff in error,
A. §• A. J. Parker, for the defendant in error.
The fact that the note was left with Daniel for collection, was, I think, enough to warrant the justice in coming to the conclusion that he had authority to appear as attorney for Richtmyer. A general authority to col
p. 237
Judgment affirmed.
lect, implies a power so to appear ; and the fact that Daniel had the note in his custody, was a circumstance tending further to show the power.