Wilson v. J. J. Newman Lumber Co.

Citations

• 129 Miss. 139
• 91 So. 858

Syllabus

<p>1. Compromise and Settlement. Where a master had settled with an attorney claiming to represent the deceased’s relatives in an administrator’s suit, defendant need not offer to rescind the settlement, in order to recover from attorney.</p> <p>A bill, which alleges that, shortly after one of its employees was killed, complainant received a letter from an attorney alleging in substance that he represented the father of the deceased, and. his folks in presenting the claim for the death of deceased, and thereafter a settlement was made. with this attorney, one day after suit had been brought by the administrator; and special pleas were filed in the administrator’s suit setting up in full the settlement and calling attention of the court to the fact that the attorney claimed' to have an assignment of the cause of action, this was all that was necessary for the defendant to do in that suit. In his pleadings he relied upon the settlement made through the attorney. It was not necessary for defendant before the trial of the cause in the circuit court to offer to rescind the settlement with the attorney; neither was it necessary for it to notify the attorney of the pendency of this suit.</p> <p>2. Compromise and Settlement. Master, having paid attorney in settlement for servant’s death> may, after judgment hy servant’s administrator, maintain a hill in equity against the attorney.</p> <p>Where its special plea of release and also of accord and satisfaction were held for naught in the trial in the circuit court and a judgment rendered against it for damages for the death of deceased, it has a right to maintain a bill in equity against the attorney through whom the settlement was consummated for an accounting and for the return of money paid him under a mistake of fact, viz., the mistaken idea that the settlement made with him was a valid and binding settlement for the death of the deceased. A demurrer to such bill by the defendant’s attorney was properly overruled.</p>