
    Timothy Brainard and Ward Pendleton v. John Harris.
    Giving time for the payment of a judgment, is a sufficient consideration for a note given hy the defendants to plaintiff’s attorney, for his fees in the
    This is a bill in chancery, reserved in the county of Portage.
    The bill states that on or about the year 1838, the Farmers’ Bank of Canton recovered against the complainants, in the Supreme Court of the county of Portage, a judgment for about *$>4,000; that the defendant, Harris, as attorney for the bank, ordered an execution, which was issued. By virtue of this execution, the sheriff levied upon the goods of the complainants, which were sold, and the judgment in part satisfied. That at the time of said sale, the complainants applied to said Harris for extension of time on the judgment aforesaid; he agreed to the extension, upon condition complainants would give him their judgment note for §100, which ho claimed as being due him as fees in said suit, with which condition complainants complied, executed the note, and judgment was stayed accordingly. Harris afterward procured judgment to be entered on the note, and complainants paid §50 in part satisfaction, and Harris has procured an execution to be issued to collect the balance.
    The prayer of the bill is, that the judgment may be enjoined, etc.
    To this bill the defendant, Harris, demurred.
    No argument submitted for complainants.
    Harris, for defendant.
   Hitchcock, J.

The only question which seoms to be presented in this case is, whether there was any sufficient consideration for the note upon which the judgment at law was rendered. Harris was the attorney for the Farmers’ Bank of Canton. As such, he had recovered a judgment against the complainants. They were anxious to obtain time for the payment of this judgment. He was willing to give the time, provided they would pay him his fees, or secure the judgmont. There was nothing unreasonable in this proposition. The complainants were willing to, and did comply with it. They thus thought the consideration was ample. And it seoms to us, there can be no doubt of the validity of the contract. On this ground we sustain the demurrer and dismiss the bill, without inquiring whether the remedy of the complainants, if they have any, was not at law. Bill dismissed.  