562
..::1 ha ve not wnttren 'anela'bo:t;ate:opinioJil; in thiscase for the reason that ' it :wasjmtimated' b:wcounsel at the hearing that a>writof error taken.to -supreme ·court, in 'any event; and Iconoont!1Uyself with ana.nnounce·ment of my· conclusiolilupon ,·the, facts ,and law aao! undel"stand them. 'Judgment will betlntered in favor of the a writ of erroris allowed·..
'/."
i
1;'.1,: : I
(UWcuit C'our.e,D/ 1. POWER OF ATTORNEy-REVOCATION.
1,.1881.)
A power of attorney, giv.eo1t{) seCllre.. the performance of an agreement, cannot be revoked by the donor without a satisfaction of the .1+/.c,oJ;ltrach·, , l ,I -,', '., ". '. ..' . ",I l "
,2.
,
III t,he' prosecution of a suit ihe,pla:i4tiff's'attorl,leys acquired a Him
·.
... '. . '.
".
.
'
"'..
'. '
, 'the claim; under agtiieiliEint with fheir client;· and cause'd " him to secure thesalllEllby th>e !3tecu1tiQri of ia power of attorney, delthe con,roLQf tJ,le to Hela, thl!-t. sua., , power could not be revoked, and ne.'Y' employed, by the . donor, u!1til he hadsatisiled his part df theagreement.--'-[ED. . . · ':; ji'j,j:,",
an
I, (', ;-f. "
",;
James Barrett, for discoJltinuance. ' EdwaraJ.'Phelps, lor , LuciUsE'. Ohittenden,for' " , ,WIJEELEJR, DO' J. suit is f()unded. and was· brought (l()urt.. : It was'remo:ved .tothis court before the lalJt term,·the, pJl}intifLbeing'8. citizen of Vermont and· the defendant of New York. . Aocording·to:the .record certified froIll of: the: state,co.nrt, .wbowere a.lsoattorneysroUhie cotlriJ,appeared plaiJa. :tiff:there,.l8lndi,have eontiuuedtheir' llppearanoe:here. 'The practice ci411iJh.e iatate:. this court, is for any attorney; 01'" fpr<any:par.ty to .:any, s,uu or:prqceeding ,th6¥ein, without baingrequire.d:. to 'l}1skot cbtaiu ,a,ny lea¥e of JtMJcburt,f,or,llha.bl,pul1pori;,.,f)ince the last term another attorney of the state courts audof this I, , ( '1,
ootid h8IBientered'an 8ippearance h6"re fol' ,the:plaintii. At themillclthe, docket atfthisterm thecQuDsel for ,t,he tifffil!'stappearing answer':and set the case for trial ;;the, counseL lltBt.app.eal'ing, also '!tJ;l$Wetfl, a,nd insists upon entering a diseoDtinuance. Upon ,this i' between the counsel for the:;plaintiff the cQurt has hf!ard summarily, up(;)n suchproofa by affida'Vit as they hav;e been, able to present,as to whichis,entitle<l,,;to control about the case. in in court, but, has not ai:lBumeddo,tlie CO,l,lJit j control, of case or of: the such mannerllB warrant the court in actUlgupoarhis;direGtions. Fl'om the proofs, it for -"preeerth,purpos¢lJ, appears. that the suit was brought upon an: agreementbetwe,en,the .plaintiff, his son Matthew Ste'Wo,l't"andthe attorneys bringing it and appearing:in it, .that:-thei attorneYIl should have, B), permanent lien upon the; wa.im:and ,the,,sl.1it for, theil'! charges, Bnd dis,; bursements, ,awl. 'that ,the, contrQI ,a.n4: lIlanagement of ,the olltin1 aIll!,suit,sqowq be,pltj,(led,in the.lire.nd$ ,of ,YQ.tthew to secure the agreetnent, :tuldj tha.' a power of, attorney i;rrevoca:hIe; with full power mlltde by 'to Matthew, <in; pursuai:tce. ,of thatagreffilent ; that the hQ.s;been contimIedby hiw, and other liahilities aI¥! ,expenses).ncurred by him and them, ,and'leharges hl,love 'been made nOQe' of have beeUJlpai4 Qr"re-im};>ut'sed., or.offeued to be ; that the. pIa.intift ,tb.e ,defendant by w'hich, forflromeI 8uInQfJ;lloneY"i a ,pad, which has. beeQ., paiddhe sttit,\tAS ,to 'at :thiaterm, aga"ipst the: underst90d, willhj:ls Qf:. Matthew ami, attorneys,; that the attorney Ittst, ap.pes,rmg,Wllt!:\ 'ElQ:;\(plo,Yad to,carey. Qut. this 'lj,gree:meat with, POWer of attor;llf3y·was ofntbiat of )to ,the, M;tofMYs" cl\P-d,' they' were ,SOi:{JtJj ,Mlhy, sUQh,procetldingll" ,O\lt 'Pf coutt and uncle!', ,the Jt4ey epqla.! 4iflcharged.· " It 'is, la.coks jqr taldngcare :rights. ripv;91veiil. 'lUHl> illhol;ijq,'guar,eJ Ihis
of,
hitereii1Jsas"betwel:ln'the ,attomaysQu tha£'aocoum;,i 'l1his claim m.ayor tri8!J'fWt be in,fafet;ltherEj is:not sufficient proof before the court for' a'satisfactory ;detertrii'n· ation of that questtol'l,and thisprodooding ilJ'not well calculated for that putpose and should not be used for it unless Buch a course is u.navoidable. ' In this question the rights of the defendant are not'so' ved that any determination If he'.acquired is to be maaeuponthem, or affected by any rights in bar of the suit 'byvirtrie of£4e agreement, he ean have them tried upon a' proper plea,andhave the propel' judgment entered; but Whether the plaintiff should. discontinue his, suit Or not left wholly to him. or those standing in his 'rights;' 'to his or el'ly-al1thdrizedattorrieys, when ascertained., ,;The, oouli,llan-' riot hisrigbt to manne:tj' f auitby. trompel"l not entome !ai'ragteement to :discolrl:inn'6i:tbe agr.een1enhhumih be;found; litlg a 'drs0ontitlllauceilifi Stich! a douvs6wol!lld ihterferer with proaedure' 0f the couW, llrTld: th13 lIigHt'of: f$oh Pill'oy 'to ta' ;i;riakoMhe: issues 'in; <liaise,: oy j'ttyy;': ,arll' of, iih'e ,(jlAl11<V, 'WihoM' fM!i"eiair rd'l1l tyt i81vto ll reprelSi#rlr pa;rtie8' i in; ooU'tt1: li']3yvittuh 1of 'ltliait: eltlploymeh't: Uie1Yjnu.Yi h:aNl:l,'ll.llthotityoo:talet· f\)f lo:ut'<dfL Murtis,nUl -vltcation,but! when. 'they 1'10 fa.et it'is ird0-rll ,rpriivibt& I agenitsl Ot" the parties 'flnail! as' offiMtEl 0'£ thetontt ,i)[ 'WhEJJl, "BiS :in tMSi <lllise, oflicets;asaccredited "llittorill:lJe 'of,thEJ;OOurtrappeli1" in 'coutt for a patty'as 'the' anliafieJ1wl,trds another attorney; allthOugh eq-tially'4l,ccreditledtts r a,n' the court, appears ll.lid 'cla.ims' :to'coriirol, the litigation to the exclusion. of the others:, it may' wel1:be questioned, 'especially when the party is himself personally present in.court; whether the court should, upon ptoceedingsmerely shown to ha.ve taken placBout of court and in vacation, allow any attorney but the first appearing to control the proceedings, until the party himself, in court, discharges the first and substitutes the other in his place. But it is not neoessary to dispose of this question upon this ground; there isanot'her which lies deeper and more affects the of the plaintiff now under consider-
ation. The power of attorney was made upon a good and valuable consideration, which, was.theunderta.kin:g by Matthew to prosecute the claim iI). suit, to contin)le the, employment of the attorneys, for which they were to have the lien upon the claim and suit, and to incur .such other expenses and liabilities as shbuld be necessary, and such as he has The lien not as such, but out of the express agreement of the!parties, and is. such a lien as the plaintiff could by; such ttglieement create j . aJ;ld. itsr,effect doe$' not now depend! upon any notice to ant; lis riS?ts ley v. '1 Ves. Jr. 3, It IS saId by Lord Chancellor BI-. <1,on, 28, and ,Uqt oIlly for hut· for others" that the court would not permit such a b!'l,liqvoked., It: is, laid:,down,inBouv.Bac. Abr. ,e Authority!,',E,:that,.a, power of a1ltorney; executed' for a tahlable cdtisidera:ti6h; 'ti!illfrot' be ·;tiie'd by revoked. In Wa'sh v. was not ,r,eYQqabJe,.,,,: 'lIb.\fl, wiih'i;benagl'eement under which· !i'lx;6cuiedsnoperated to in the cla:hr1'll:fitl"the attorneys which cannot be divested 'by tneplaintiff of his own motion without satisfying his part of the Gerrish v. Sweetser, 4: i 3-74,.· ItlJ.13' clear duty,"nd well-settled practice of cou:rts, to. ,rights' BQ against hostile acts of thoS6, from; w.hotntMy aredl.cquired. Halloran v. Whitcomb, 43 Vt.,306. , Under these circumstances oounsel.first appe.aringmust be allowed to control the pJ'ooeedings in OOlU't in the name of the plll.intiff. Case to stand for trial. Ken:r,?n
6{
566, HBJllJPfU'fJ'v. SCHMALTzi,s,nd another. May28,1881.) 1. EtPilESS ST. WIS. +,0081, SUBD. 5.. An,express trust to rent and sell lands for th!l.benel1tot the grantor luring his life, and of other after his death, may be lawfully created under the fifth subdivision of section 2081 of the Revised l:ltatlltes of Wisconsin. 43AME:.l.:SlJPPLEMENTARY INSTRI1MENT. Where · beiteficiarilll! (If' such trust,other than the grantor,are n,amed in a"supplementary instrument, of a later date, be as one in, the construction of the tf\1st.
(,
3. SAME-DESIGNATION 011' BENEFICIARIES. . rrhedesigbation of contingent beneficiaries as lI.class, and Dot by ,nl'lme, will not render' sucb trUst void for indefiniteness. 4; POBSEssiON,-TITLttL....Es'fOPPEL: A; vendee, who eriijl1'8 intO' possession under a .contract of purchase ise!!topped from denying the. title of bis vendor so long a!! he retains u'nder the contract. . ,
5·.
H .4069,. .. ' , , Verbaladmi8Sions by tqe vendee that entered into possession undersueh d&:ttrMt,and that he: had'ti'everpaid anythirtg on the earn!!, are ,nPt,rendered inadm.lsslblein ev.idenee, npon thellUbsequen,r Qf vendee, by sections .4069 anll 4070 of the Revised Stat_.> WiscOnsin.-[ED. , ' , ,
lie
'. '; (( '.
I:J
,,',11_
Ejeein:limt, " JenkirM, Ellidtt'J 'Winkler, for plaintiff. l10wardtf Wall, for defendants. " DYER,sD. J. 'ThiEds an aotiouof ejectment, to recover the' possession of 140 acres of ·land- in 'Milwaukee county,' oc. cUpied':by thE:! defendant'Schmaltz, as lessee of the defend. ant Merrick;whl'J.claims cowlll3rship in hostility to' the title' of the plaintiff. The defence consists of a denial Of the plain. tiff's title, and of adverse possession fbra pl3riod of 20 years, which possession is also asserted for a period of 10 years under claim of title fouuded upon a deed from one Ellis Worthington to J. Merrick, father of the defendant Levi C. Merrick. The case has been tried without a jury, the parties having
