
    Abraham Cohn, Appellant, v. Annie Heusner, Respondent.
    (New York Common Pleas—Additional General Term,
    August, 1894.)
    An attorney who has not assumed personally to invest his client’s moneys, and is only employed to investigate the title to the property or security in which the investment is to he made and draw the necessary papers, is not chargeable with neglect or want of skill because he failed to advise his client against the investment, nor can the fact that there Was a loss on the investment affect the value of his services.
    Appeal from a judgment of the District Court in the city of Hew York for the seventh judicial district, rendered by the justice, without a jury, in favor of the defendant.
    Action to recover for professional services as attorney at law or solicitor alleged to have been rendered by plaintiff’s assignor upon defendant’s retainer, the defense being a general denial.
    
      Louis Oohen, for appellant.
    
      Henry Btemert, for respondent.
   Bischoff, J.

The judgment appealed from was rendered upon a sharp conflict of evidence which involved the question whether the services, for which recovery was sought in this action, were induced by the defendant or by her husband.

The plaintiff’s assignor testified to the defendant’s direct request for the services, while the defendant with equal positiveness denied that any such request was made, and, furthermore, the defendant’s husband, called as a witness for defendant, testified in effect that the services were rendered upon his retainer, and upon his promise to pay therefor. This conflict it was the special province of the justice below to determine, and, with such determination upon the facts in this case favorably to the defendant, the appellate court is not to interfere in the absence of a palpable perversion of justice.

In part the services in suit consisted of the investigation of the vendor’s title to a certain steamboat purchased by the defendant’s husband, and the preparation of a mortgage of such property to the defendant, she having advanced her husband part of the purchase money.

With a view of demonstrating the worthlessness of the services rendered by plaintiff’s assignor, the defendant was permitted, against the objection and exception of the plaintiff’s counsel, upon cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witness Cohn, to elicit the facts that she had sustained a loss of $8,000 by reason of her investment in this mortgage, there being no pretense that the loss was occasioned by neglect or want of skill on the part of the plaintiff’s assignor in the performance of the services above particularized, and it being conceded that the loss was wholly owing to the precarious character of the security, the federal laws giving preference in the payment of claims out of the proceeds of the sales of vessels to such liabilities as were incurred in navigation.

A solicitor or attorney at law is under no duty to dissuade his client from entering upon a contemplated business venture. Having concern for the latter’s prosperity, the former may tender his advice in that regard, but if he fails so to do he is not chargeable with neglect.

The special skill which the solicitor or attorney engages himself to exert in his client’s behalf is such as is peculiar to his profession, but the relation of solicitor or attorney and client imposes upon the former no duty as to an exercise of sagacity in business ventures superior to that of the latter.

An attorney at law or solicitor, therefore, who has not assumed personally to invest his client’s moneys, and who is called upon only to lend his professional aid for the purpose of carrying his client’s proposed venture into effect, by investigation of the title to the property or security constituting the subject-matter of the proposed investment, and the preparation of the necessary legal documents, assumes no responsibility for loss which may come from the client’s ill venture. Weeks Attys. §§ 304, 311. Hence, the attorney or solicitor is not chargeable with neglect or want of skill because he has failed to advise his client against the venture, nor can the fact of the loss in any degree affect the value of the former’s services.

For the error pointed out the judgment must he reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Bookstaveb, J., concurs.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.  