{ "id": 8697240, "name": "P. M. MORRIS, Admr. with will annexed, v. SAMUEL A. GRIER and others", "name_abbreviation": "Morris v. Grier", "decision_date": "1877-01", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "410", "last_page": "412", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "76 N.C. 410" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "7 Cranch 436", "category": "reporters:scotus_early", "reporter": "Cranch", "case_ids": [ 572749 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/11/0436-01" ] }, { "cite": "16 Mass. 396", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 2035255 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mass/16/0327-01" ] }, { "cite": "69 N. C. 93", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2085494 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/69/0093-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 281, "char_count": 3907, "ocr_confidence": 0.446, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.509762070263643e-07, "percentile": 0.8832182880160194 }, "sha256": "5e74790fabe67d5833dd5f2a5fd0520ae8b868db223228854e1448ba116c7a8d", "simhash": "1:953c4071beefcba2", "word_count": 676 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:21:57.000998+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "P. M. MORRIS, Admr. with will annexed, v. SAMUEL A. GRIER and others." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Eairoloth, J.\nThis action was brought to obtain a con\u2022\u2022struction of a will and a settlement with the defendant \u2022devisees in said will.\n'The defendants employed an Attorney to represent their Interest in the suit. Eor the purpose of equalizing the .legacies as required by the will, the Attorney agreed to refer the matter to arbitrators whose award was to be the judgment of the Court. He had no special authority to do so. Are his clients bound by the reference ? There is no doubt .that the Attorney\u2019s agreements about continuances, about -evidence, the conduct of the trial and the like, will gen\u25a0erally bind the client. jTe cannot enter into a compromise without the consent of his client. Holker v. Parker, infra. He cannot accept a draft in payment of a judgment debt payable in future, without special authority from his client. Moye v. Cogdell, 69 N. C. 93.\nIn England it was held that the Attorney has power to submit a case to arbitration .although the client desired it -should not be done. The client\u2019s remedy in such cases being .an action against the Attorney for damages. Thomas v. Hews, 2 C. & M. 327. So he may modify the terms of submission when the client has agreed to refer and may enlarge time for the abitrators to make their award. Rex v. Hill, 7 Price, 630.\nAn authority to prosecute or defend a suit, implies a pow\u2022er to refer it by rule of Court. Buckland v. Conway, 16 Mass. 396. The general rule is that he may submit the matter in -dispute to arbitration, because by the implied assent of his -client arising from his employment, he may do anything \u25a0which the Court may approve in the progress of the cause \u25a0when there is a suit pending. Jenkins v. Gillespie, 10 vol. Sm. and M. 31, (Mississippi.)\nAh Attorney at law, as such, 'has authority to submit the \u25a0cause to arbitration. Holker v. Parker, 7 Cranch 436, where, -the Court say, \u2018It is believed to be the practice throughout \u2022the Union for suits to be referred by consent of counsel \u2022without special authority.\u201d Upon the weight of these and other authorities, we are of opinion that the defendants are bound by the rule of reference made by' their Attorney in this case without their special assent. The reason of our decision being that arbitration is one of the legal modes of' trying disputed questions to which the client\u2019s cause may be submitted by the Attorney under his general authority to-prosecute or defend.\nNo error.\nPer Curiam. Judgment affirmed..", "type": "majority", "author": "Eairoloth, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Messrs. R. Barringer and W J. Montgomery, for plaintiff.", "Messrs. Wilson $ Bon, for defendants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "P. M. MORRIS, Admr. with will annexed, v. SAMUEL A. GRIER and others.\nPraetiee \u2014 Arbitration \u2014 Reference of Action by Attorney.\n.A-reference of an action or controversy to arbitrators by an Attorney, although without the knowledge or authority of his client, is binding upon the client.\n<{Moye v. Cogdell, 69 bf. C. 93, cited and approved.)\nMOTION to confirm an Award as to valuation of land, heard at Fall Term, 1876, of Cabarrus Superior Court, be-fere Schenck, J.\nThe facts bearing on the points decided are; that one James R. Campbell after his marriage with the defendant Sarah E. Gilmer, employed Paul B. Means, Esq. as counsel to represent his interest and that of his wife in this action, which was instituted to obtain a construction of a will in which the defendants were devisees. No restriction being placed on the power of Mr.' Means as attorney, he agreed to refer the matters in controversy to arbitrators. Campbell \u25a0was not consulted when said agreement was made and signed by Mr. Means, and the Docket of said Court showed that he had been of counsel for defendants since Eall Term, 1873\nUpon this state of facts the Court was of opinion that said attorney had power to bind said Campbell and wife by the .agreement aforesaid, and adjudged that the award of the arbitrators be in all respects confirmed. From which judgment the defendants appealed.\nMessrs. R. Barringer and W J. Montgomery, for plaintiff.\nMessrs. Wilson $ Bon, for defendants." }, "file_name": "0410-01", "first_page_order": 422, "last_page_order": 424 }