Branch v. Burnley
File:CallsReports1854V1BranchvBurnley.pdf
Branch v. Burnley, Call Vol. I 127 (1797), [1] discussed whether an attorney at law may receive money recovered from the defendant. It also discussed whether the attorney’s receipt would discharge the judgment.
Background
Burnley and Breckenridge hired an attorney, Mr. Briggs, to sue the Branch estate for a debt. In 1772, Mr. Briggs obtained a judgment on behalf of Burnely and Breckenridge. In 1774, a bond was given, however, in 1778, the Branch estate paid the judgment directly to Mr. Briggs, the attorney. After the war in 1787, Branch and Burnley went to court to collect on their bond but were refused. The two appealed to the court of chancery complaining of the payment to Briggs. The Branch estate then requested an injunction stating that Briggs, as their attorney, had the authority to accept payment on his client’s behalf. Chancellor Wythe awarded the injunction. Burnley and Breckenridge then brought a proceeding objecting to the Court of Chancery’s jurisdiction.
The Court's Decision
Chancellor Wythe dismissed the case for failure to state a claim (want of equity). The court of appeals reversed the decision not because of the merits of the case but because the Chancellor did not have jurisdiction over this case, he prevented Burnley from requesting an appeal.
See also
References
- ↑ Daniel Call, Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of Virginia, 3rd. ed., ed. Lucian Minor (Richmond: A. Minor, 1854), 127.
