
    Adams’s Assignee v. George Roller.
    An attorney at law cannot compromise his client’s cause without his consent. (Holker v. Parker, 7 Cranch, 436, cited by the court.)
    Error from Freestone. Tried below before the Hon. J. M. Thurman.
    In this case it was agreed between the plaintiff’s attorney and the attorneys for the defendant, that the plaintiff Roller should take judgment by default against the defendant Adams for $7000, with stay of execution for four years. The judgment was not to draw interest, and was to be secured by alien on certain described lands belonging to the defendant Adams. This is the only material fact.
    The writ of error is prosecuted by Adams’s assignee in bankruptcy.
    
      T. D. Moseley, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Hancock & West, for defendant in error.
   Evans, P. J.

The only question we are called upon to notice, and which is decisive of the cause, is whether it is within the scope of the power of an attorney at law to compromise the interest of his client by confessing judgment, with a stay of execution, and giving a lien upon land embracing the homestead.

It seems to be well settled that an attorney cannot compromise his client’s cause without his consent. (See 2 Tucker’s Com., p.—; Holker v. Parker, 7 Branch, 436.)

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.  