therein, whether assigned and set apart to her or not, was, at any time, subject to levy and sale under execution against her."
Which instruction the court refused to give, and plaintiffs excepted.
The cause was determined before the Hon. WILLIAM H. FIELD, Judge.
Plaintiffs brought error.
Argument for the plaintiff
CUMMINS, for the plaintiff. It is well established that an attorney is bound, in the discharge of his duties, to use reasonable care and diligence; that he must he posessed of competent knowledge and skill to conduct the business he undertakes; and that he is responsible for any damages consequent upon his failure to use such skill and diligence. Varnum vs. Martin, 15 Pick. 440. Dearborn vs. Dearborn, 15 Mass. 315. Gilbert vs. Williams, 8 Mass. 58. Huntington vs. Rummill, 3 Day 396. Cummins vs. McLain, et al., 2 Ark. 412. Russell vs. Palmer, 2 Wils. 328. Wilson vs. Tucker, 3 Stark. 154. Godfrey vs. Jay, 7 Bing. 405. Bonne vs. Diggles, 2 Ch. 311. Swannell vs. Ellis et al., 1 Bing. 347. Moutrion vs. Jeffreys, 2 Car. & P. 113. Smedes' ex. vs. Elmondorf, 3 J. R. 188.
The attorney in this case was bound to continue process of execution until the debt was made,—the proof showing possession of property by the defendant in the judgment: he was bound to make the delivery bond available, unless he shows that the security was insolvent; he was bound to sue the sheriff upon his bond for the false return to the first execlon, or notify his client and ask further instructions, and the law requires him to use all the means placed in his power by the law to collect. The court, therefore, erred in the instructions given and refused.
Argument for the defendant
WATKINS & CURRAN, contra, contended that the attorney had discharged his duty when he issued execution upon the judgment of his client, and was not bound to seek for, or point out property; that if the sheriff failed to levy and there was property upon which to make the levy, he was not required by law to sue
