Brent v. Davis

Le Grand, C. J., delivered the opinion of this court. This action was brought to recover the amount of a judgment obtained on a promissory note, payable to the appellees by a certain Thomas G. Kelly, of Carroll county. The facts of the case, as shown at the trial'below, may be thus stated:— The appellants were associated in copartnership, (as was proven by an advertisement to that effect in one of the newspapers published in the city of Baltimore,) for the conducting of their business in the city of Baltimore as lawyers; that the appellee, Ferry, placed in the hands of the appellant, Horsey, the promissory note of Kelly, and the said Horsey gave him therefor the following receipt: “ March 27th, 1845. Received of John Ferry, Esq., a note of Thomas G. Kelly, of Carroll county, dated 31st December 1842, for $>350, one day after date — to be collected.

Brent & Horsey.” On the note so handed to Mr. Horsey suit was brought against the maker, and judgment obtained on the same in Carroll county court. The suit was brought by T. Parkin Scott, Esq., as the attorney of the pa3rees. Subsequently, Abner Neale, Esq., appeared as their counsel. The money was obtained on the judgment,'but never paid over to either the appellants or appellees in this case.

This suit is brought on the theory, that the appellants having received the note for ²²⁷ collection, are bound, in law, for the amount received by Neale. This is denied on various grounds: — First, that Horsey had no power to bind his partner to do any professional business beyond the limits of the city of Baltimore. Second, that inasmuch as neither of the appellants practiced their profession in Carroll county, the reception of the note for collection only implied, on their part, an obligation to exercise due diligence in the selection of some attorney of that county who was generally esteemed and regarded as trustworthy and competent; and Thirdly, that it is the custom among the members of the profession in the city of Baltimore, when they do not practice in a particular county, or court, to transmit to an attorney who does so, any paper given to them for collection, and that such reception and transmission is not understood as subjecting them to any liability for the conduct of the person selected to prosecute the claim. The appellants never received any fee or commission for their agency in the transaction.

It was also proven that the appellee Ferry was a subscriber to and daily received the newspaper, the “Baltimore American,” at the time the notice of the co-partnership between the appellants appeared in it as an advertisement. On this state of facts the appellees submitted- to the court below one prayer, which was granted; and the appellants six, which were all rejected. From this decision this appeal is taken. We think the court erred in granting the prayer of the plaintiff, and in rejecting the first, second and sixth prayers