repudiate the city's debts, or do what is, in principle, no better: force a settlement under the name of a compromise, at say 25 per cent. of the whole debt. If legislation can thus strike down municipal securities, the value of the $1,000,000,000 of county, township, city, and other municipal obligations, now outstanding, in the hands of bona fide holders for value, depends, not on constitutional guaranties, as the American people have heretofore supposed, but on the enactments of legislatures, to be elected in large measure by the debtor communities. Then we will realize what Judge Story's prophetic vision saw many years since, that the legislativl;r interference in this instance, which giv-es immunity to Memphis, is "but the first link in a long chain of repetitions, every subsequent interference being naturally provoked by the effects of the preceding one," "by which injustice will be done, and the standard of integrity lowered, to be followed by other evils, that will demoralize and plague the country. These are my views. But a decree will be entered dismissing complainants' bills and distributing the fund in the hands of the receiver in accorda:q.ce with the mandate from the supreme court.
01' NEW HAMPSHIRE
«(Jircuit (Jourt, D. New Hampshire. February 24,1881.)
FOR ACCOUNT-SEVERAL AND DISTINCT AOOOUNTS-PARTms.
In Equity. Demurrer to Amended Bill. Sidney Bartlett and Wallace Hackett, for complainant. Mr. Wilson and J. H. Benton, Jr., for defendants. LOWELL, C. J. This bill is brought upon the same contract which was under consideration by tij.is court in the district of Massachusetts in a case heard by Mr. Justice Clifford and myself,-Ogdens9urgh <J Lake Champlain R. Co. v. Boston &;
O. & L. C. R.
V. N. B. 00. OF N. H.
Lowell R. Corp. 4 FED. REP. 64. We then gave a construction to this very singular and difficult contmct, and held that the four railroad companies, who are its parties of the ,third part, had agreed severally with the plaintiff corporation to repay to it the large sum which it had advanced, to the extent of the gross proceeds of the business in said contract mentioned and provided for, and only to this extent. The demurrer to the bill in that case was sustained because there was no allegation as to the amount of gross earnings, and because it did not appear that Smith & Stark, the trustees of the sinking fund, had no fund in their possession applicable to the payment of the debt. futhe present case the bill has been amended to meet the objections which were sustained in the other case. The principal point made in support of the demurrer is that the Nashua & Lowell Railroad Company, against whom 'a separate suit is pending, being within the state of New Hampshire, ought to have been made a party defendant. It was intimated in the former decision that if all four of the borrowing corporations had been found in one district, a single suit might properly have been sustained against them; but we held that they were not necessary parties. The amended bill demands only one-fourth of the debt from this defendant. and, if its gross earnings are equal to that sum, I do not see that the other corporations are even proper parties to that inquiry. At all events, there is no adv!1ntage in joining two out of four of the accounting parties, each account being several and distinct. Demurrer overruled.
LAKE CHAMPLAIN LOWELL
'(Oi'1'cuit Oourt, D. New Hampshire.
February 24, 18B1.)
In Equity. Demurrer. Sidney Bartlett and Wallace Hachett, for plaintiff. F. A. Brooks, for defendants. The bill in this case is like that passed upon in Ogdens. burgh d; Lake Champlain R. Co. v. Boston d; Lowell R. Corp., 4 FED. REP. 64, and has not been amended to meet the objeotions sustained in that case. The order must therefore must be: Dtlmurrer sustained.
(Circuit Court, S. D. Ohio.
February 16, 1SB1.)
ATTORNEY AND CLmNT-ATTORNEY UNDERTAKING TO PERFORM SERVICE BEYOND HIS EMPLOYMENT-DEGREE OF SKILL.
If an attorney, employed to conduct a cause, undertakes to perform any service in regard to the case which, by his employment, he was not bound to do, unless specially directed by his client, he will be held to the same strictness in the manner of its discharge as if within the terms of his contract. . 2.
ATTORNEY AT LAW-PERFECT LEGAL KNOWLEDGE NOT REQUIRED·.
The undertaking of an attorney is not that he possesses perfect legal knOWledge, or the highest degree of skill in relation to the business he undertakes, nor that he will conduct it with the greatest degree of diligence, care, and prudence·
.3. SAME - ORDINARY LEGAL KNOWLEDGE AND ORDINARY DILIGENCE
But the undertaking of an attorney with his client is that he possesses the ordinary legal knowledge and skill common to members of the profession, and that in the discharge of his duties he will exercise ordinary and reasonable diligence, care, and prudence. · Reported by Messrs. Florien Giauque and J. C. Harper, of the Cincin. nati L.ar.