Grumley v. Webb, 48 Mo. 562 (1871)

Citation: Grumley v. Webb, 48 Mo. 562 (1871)
Parent Document: Grumley v. Webb, 48 Mo. 562 (1871)
Jurisdiction: Missouri (state)
Effective Date: 1871-10-15
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8046745/grumley-v-webb/ ↗

Full Text

1,022 chars

The third paper prepared by Krum, dismissing the suit, was not presented to him, nor did he know anything about it, but it was signed on the same day by his attorneys. There is something in this transaction that goes entirely to rebut and dispel the presumption that Grumley ever intended to compromise' the $7,000 suit, or that he assented to any disposition being made of it. While Broadhead seemed to think that everything was settled, he clearly states that nothing was said about anything but the judgment. He had no authority from Grumley to settle the suit, and consequently Grumley would not be bound by any arrangement he made; for it is settled law that an attorney employed in the usual way to conduct a suit has in general no authority to enter into a compromise without the sanction, expressed or implied, of his client. (North Mo. R.R. Co. v. Stephens, 86 Mo. 153 ; 1 Pars. Cont. 117.) But the simple dismissal would amount to nothing, and would not preclude another suit being instituted for the same cause.

Other Sections in This Document (174)

Full Text