
    Edward C. Wilkinson vs. John N. Griswold et al.
    While it may be that the court should have granted a charge asked, yet, if the record show that the verdict was right, and the grant of the charge could not have changed the result, its refusal will not he ground of error sufficient to set aside the verdict.
    W. being an attorney at law, associated with W. W., received from G. a claim for collection, and soon after retired from the practice, leaving the claim in the hands of W. W., who united with J. in the practice, and with J. brought suit on the claim, recovered a judgment, and the sheriff collected the money, and paid it over to J. without W.’s authority; held, on these facts in a suit against W. by his client, for the money thus collected by J., and not paid over, that the sheriff was right in paying the money to J., he being one of the attorneys of record; and that W. was liable therefor to his client.
    In order that the pertinency of a particular charge, asked and refused, may he made to appear, the substance of the testimony should be set out.
    In error from the circuit court of Yazoo county; Hon. Robert C. Perry, judge.
    John 1ST. and N. L. Griswold sued Edward C. Wilkinson as surviving partner of Wilkinson & Willison, attorneys at law. The declaration in substance states, that Wilkinson & Willison as attorneys, received from the plaintiffs for collection a claim against John Y. Reily; that suit was brought and judgment recovered on this claim, and it was collected by the sheriff from Reily; that Wilkinson & Willison permitted Thomas J. Jennings to receive from the sheriff, and apply to his own use, the .money arising from the cláim, by which the money was lost to the,plaintiffs. The plea was the general issue.
    On the trial, as appears from the bill of exceptions, the plaintiffs proved that the claim mentioned in the declaration was received by Wilkinson & Willison for collection; shortly thereafter the copartnership of Wilkinson & Willison was dissolved, and Wilkinson retired from the practice, leaving Willison in charge of the unfinished business-of the firm. Some time after Willison entered into partnership with Thomas J. Jennings, and suit was instituted on the claim of the plaintiffs by Willison & Jennings; that jüdgment was had, money collected by the sheriff and paid over to Jennings without the sanction, approbation, or permission of Wilkinson. It was not known whether Willison assented to or knew of the payment to Jennings.
    At the request of the plaintiffs’ attorney the court instructed the jury, that if they believe the plaintiffs employed Wilkinson & Willison, attorneys, to collect the claim, and they permitted Jennings to receive the amount from the sheriff, then they must find for the plaintiffs; to which the defendant objected, and asked the court to instruct the jury, “ that if they believe from the evidence Wilkinson did not authorize Jennings to collect the money, either expressly or by implication, then the law is for the defendant, unless the jury believe from the evidence that Willison authorized him to do so, or assented to it,” which the court refused. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs. The defendant moved the court for a new trial, because the jury found contrary to law and evidence, and because the court misdirected the jury. The court overruled the motion. The defendant excepted, and sued out this writ of error.
    
      W. R. Miles, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Pugh, for defendant in error,
    cited Fitch v. Scott, 3 How. 320.
    
      Gr. Baker, on satire side,
    Cited Patterson v. Phillips, 1 How. 572; Fitch v. Scott, 3 lb. 314.
   Mr. Justice ThacheR

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action of assumpsit instituted in the circuit court of Yazoo county by the copartnership firm of J. N. & N. L. Griswold, against Wilkinson, surviving partner of the copart-nership firm of Wilkinson & Willison, attorneys at law.

It is shown by the bill of exceptions, that the firm of Griswold placed a note in the hands of the firm of Wilkinson & Willson for collection, shortly after which Wilkinson & Willison dissolved their copartnership, Wilkinson retiring from the practice, and leaving to Willison the charge of the unfinished business; that Willison then united in copartnership with Jennings, and Willison & Jennings instituted suit upon the note, recovered a judgment, whereon the sheriff collected the amount and paid the same to Jennings, without Wilkinson’s permission or approbation.

The liability of Wilkinson to the Griswolds seems to be admitted up to the time of the recovery of the judgment upon the note, and the only point relied upon is, whether the sheriff was authorized in paying the amount levied,,to Jennings. Wilkinson, in effect, without notifying his clients, placed the note in the hands of Willison & Jennings for collection. They were the attorneys of record in the suit upon the note. It was held by this court, in the case of Butler v. Jones, 7 How. 587, that “where a sheriff collects money on execution, he is fully authorized to pay it to the plaintiff’s attorney of record, and the payment made to the attorney in such instance is a discharge to the sheriff, unless he had been notified by the plaintiff that he had changed his attorney, and that the money was not to be paid to the attorney of record.” There is no evidence that Wilkinson notified the sheriff not to pay the amount to the attorneys of record, or that he put it in the power of his clients so to do.

The circuit court refused to instruct the jury, that “if they believe from the evidence that Wilkinson did not authorize Jennings to collect the money, either expressly or by implication, then the law is for the defendant, unless the jury believe from, the evidence that Willison authorized him to do so, or assented to it.” The bill of exceptions does not purport to set out all the evidence, and the charge might or might not have been pertinent. But, upon the supposition that the court erred in refusing this charge, it does not follow that the judgment must be reversed. The record manifestly establishes Wilkinson’s liability, and a new trial could, produce no other legal result. Perry v. Clarke, 5 How. 502.

Judgment affirmed.  