
    Hall & Co. vs. Administrators of Thomas J. Wright.
    Assumpsit for money collected by an attorney at law, the intestate of defendants. , The money was traced into the coroner’s hands, but there was no proof that the intestate had received it. Verdict for the plaintiffs set aside and new trial ordered.
    BEFORE GLOVER, J., AT LANCASTER, SPRING TERM, 1856.
    The report of Ms Honor, the presiding Judge is as follows: “ The late Thomas J. Wright was the attorney of the plaintiffs, who obtained a judgment against William Clark for $1,277 21, and interest on $1,263 16, from the 24th of March, 1837. The judgment was signed and execution entered in the sheriff’s office on the 15th April, 1839. A judgment was also signed and an execution entered on the same day in favor of Pitman and Day against the said William Clark for $1,663 35 and interest, of which record Thomas J. Wright was the attorney.
    “An attachment was ordered against Leroy Secrest, then sheriff of Lancaster district, marked in the sum of $2,593 53, which embraced the amount due in the cases of Hall & Co. and Pitman & Day against William Clark. On this attachment the following payments were made in full satisfaction: to Thomas J. Wright, $1,000, on the 5th August, 1840 ; to the coroner, $446 39, on the 27th March, 1841; to Thomas J. Wright, $1,100, on the 8th January, 1842; and to Thomas J. Wright, $600, on the 10th June, 1844. Thomas J. Wright paid to Hall & Co. $475, on.the 5th August, 1840; $550 on the 8th January, 1842, and $299 25, on the 10th of June, 1844, and this action was commenced on the 1st October, 1853, against Thomas J. Wright’s administrators to recover a balance alleged to be due in the case of Hall & Co. vs. William Clark.
    
      
      “ It was in proof, that $300 was a reasonable compensation for the professional services rendered by Thomas J. Wright in the case of Hall & Co. vs. Clark, and if this sum be’ allowed, no balance was due to the plaintiffs, unless Wright received from the cofoner $446 39, paid to him on the 27 th March, 1841; or unless he failed to pay the case of Pitman and Day, retaining in his hands, from the payments made to him, enough to satisfy the case of Hall & Co.
    “ The plaintiffs claimed $381 59 and interest from the 10th June, 1844, and the verdict was for $132 23.
    “I preferred to submit the facts to the jury without an expression of opinion respecting the bar of the statute, believing the evidence too slight to authorize the conclusion which they attained.”
    The defendants appealed, and now-moved this Court for a new trial, on the grounds:
    1. Because plaintiffs’ cause of action was barred by the. statute of limitations, which being a question of law, was not charged upon by the Court.
    2. Because there was no evidence that Thomas J. Wright had reeeivéd more money than he had actually paid over to the plaintiffs; the discount plead in the case being allowed.
    3. .Because the plaintiffs’ cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations, and the verdict should have been, for the defendants.
    4. Because the verdict was in all respects contrary to law and evidence.
    
      Clinton, for appellant.
    
      Williams, contra.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Whitner, J.

This suit is brought to recover money alleged to have been collected by an attorney at law, now deceased.

On the case made in the brief it does not appear that plaintiffs’ cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations. The relation between the parties would prevent the operation of the statute until after demand, though it may be, from some intimations in the argument, that the party is concluded by the state of the pleading. On this question, therefore, no opinion is expressed. The payments were made by a sheriff against whom an attachment had issued. In every instance in which these payments were traced to the hands of the attorney, disbursements were promptly made by him on the same day. The disputed item had clearly reached the hand of the coroner, and not a tittle of evidence was produced to show that it had been paid over to the attorney. Years elapsed, — the attorney died, — the office of the coroner, it is said, is in a state of confusion, and an inference is asked whereby to charge the estate from the known assiduity of the attorney. We think this might result in great injustice. Pursuing the true line of accountability it might lead to a very different conclusion. The liability of the coroner is manifest, and if he was the object of pursuit it is not at all perceived that he could successfully shelter himself by such a presumption. The ascertained punctuality of the attorney raises a stronger presumption in h¡3 favor than his supposed assiduity does against him.

In any point of view the ease is presented under embarrassing circumstances. This Court cannot see in what way the conclusion has been reached. In the absence of all testimony bearing satisfactorily on this part of the case we think the ends of justice require a further inquiry.

The motion is granted and á new trial ordered.

O’Neall, Wardlaw, Withers, Glover and Munro, JJ., concurred.

Motion granted.  