
    Nathan Smith versus Thomas Bowditch.
    Where an attorney of this Court puts his name on the record as attorney to one of the parties in an action, notice given to him of the taking of a deposition will be sufficient, the party whom he represents being estopped by the record to allege that he appeared without authority.
    Assumpsit. At the trial, the deposition of one Mansfield, offered by the defendant, was objected to on the ground that the taking of it was not duly notified to the plaintiff. It appeared that notice was given to Kilborn Whitman, esquire, as the plaintiff’s attorney. The action was removed to this Court by demurrer to the plea, with a reservation of the right to plead anew. The demurrer was signed by Whitman as attorney to the plaintiff, and the next day or next but one, and during the same term of the Court, the notice was served upon Whitman. There was no other evidence that he was the plaintiff’s attorney. Morton J. overruled the objection. A verdict was returned for the defendant.
    
      Oct. 21st.
    
      Oct. 22d.
    
    
      K. Whitman, in support of a motion for a new trial,
    insisted that the deposition was taken without legal notice; that he could make affidavit that the plaintiff had never spoken to him concerning the action before he signed the demurrer, but that being acquainted with the plaintiff, he signed it as a mere formal thing, supposing there had been an agreement to bring the action up by demurrer.
    
      L. Williams, for the defendant.
   Per Curiam.

The signature of Whitman as attorney is a matter of record and cannot be disputed. The defendant had a right to look to the record ; and if the person whose name is there as attorney acted without authority, and the plaintiff is thereby injured, the remedy is by an action for damages.

Motion for new trial overruled. 
      
       See Revised Stat. c. 94, $ 16.
     