Two questions are presented for our consideration.

1. Was the attorney ever empowered to act as attorney in the suit brought by Carson, and if he was, how far did his authority extend f

It was contended upon the argument that the effect of the initials of the attorney’s name being marked on the back of the writ as attorney, amount in law to instructions to him to receive the money demanded by the writ. His Honor seems to have adopted this view, for he instructed the jury “ that the collection and receipt of the notes and currency by the officer, under the instruction of the attorney, as set forth in the *32 •evidence, was a discharge of the note.” The case states that u the attorney had usually prosecuted suits, brought by Mr. Carson to collect the moneys of his wards. In doing this, the only service required of him, was to take judgments. The collections were actually made under the directions of Mr. Carson, and the money received by him.”

His Honor should have left it to the jury to say, whether or not he was the attorney of the plaintiff. And if he was, it was for them to find how far his authority extended ; whether to sue for demand and receive the money sought to be recovered by the suit, or only to take judgment, leaving the business of collecting to Carson.

2. Conceding that he had been fully empowered by Carson to sue for, demand and receive whatever might be due on the note in question, had that power been revoked ?

On the 15th day of February 1862, Carson, who then held the note as guardian, filled up. and handed the writ to the Deputy sheriff. Afterwards, to-wit, on the first Monday in March 1862, he procured the appointment of one Marshall, uncle of his wards, to be their guardian, and at that time endorsed and assigned the said note and all notes of his wards to said Marshall, and delivered them to him. The writ was not executed upon the defendants until the 19th ■day of July following, and then for the first time the attorney marked the initials of his name upon the writ, and assumed, ■contrary to the scope of the authority theretofore exercised by him in the management of Carson’s business, to direct and superintend the collection of this debt, and in doing so, took in payment thereof depreciated currency.

Even the power of Carson (upon which the authority in question is said to rest) to direct and control this debt had ceased, having passed to Marshal, Imonths before the receipt by the Deputy Sheriff.

There was therefore no privity between the attorney and Marshall, who then held the note as guardian, and was many *33 miles away in total ignorance of all that was passing to his prejudice.

Let it be certified that there is error.

Per Curiam. Venire de novo.