
    Hefferman v. Burt.
    An attorney may be employed in anticipation of a suit to be brought, and when thus employed, his client will be bound by his stipulations in relation to the same, to the same extent as if he had stipulated after the suit instituted.
    After an attorney, who has made a stipulation in anticipation of a suit, has appeared to the action, and the court below, by rendering judgment, has recognized his right to appear; and after the defendant himselt, by paying a portion of the judgment thus rendered against him, and by entering into a written agreement for the delivery of property to satisfy the execution issued thereon, has recognized the right of the attorney to appear for him, he cannot, on appeal, object to the regnla.ity of the proceedings so far as the appearance of the attorney is concerned.
    "Wherein an action on a promissory note, it was assigned for error, that the courtrendered judgment without the production of the note, and the record did not disclose what testimony was offered in the court below ; Held, That the appellate court must presumo that the evidence was sufficient, and could not presume that the note was not produced.
    A plaintiff cannot recover a greater sum than is claimed in his petition with interest thereon from the time of the commencement of the suit to ■ the time of the rendition of the judgment.
    
      Appeal from the Lee District Court.
    
    Friday, December 10.
    Suit upon a promissory note. Attached to, and following the plaintiff’s petition, is the following agreement:
    “ As attorney of B. C. Burt, I hereby agree to appear to the foregoing petition, without further notice, waiving the same. I also agree that this petition may be filed at any time within the coming term of court, and have the same force as if filed ten days before the term.
    J. A. Goodrich, Att’y. for R. E. Burt.
    September 15th, 1857.
    The petition was filed October 20th, 1857, and on the 23d, the plaintiff appeared by attorney, and the defendant, by Goodrich, his attorney, and submitted the cause to the court. Judgment was rendered for plaintiff, upon which execution was issued. Defendant paid the sheriff a portion of this judgment, and entered into a written agreement with plaintiff’s attorney, in relation to turning out certain personal property in satisfaction of the execution. The petition claims the sum of $170 6-100, as money dire upon a note, with interest, following the form given in the Code. The judgment is for $188 94-100. Defendant appeals.
    
      J. M. Beck, for the appellant.
    
      F. Semple, for the appellee.
   Weight, C. J".

Three errors are assigned. First.- That Goodrich could not make the agreement attached to the petition, so as to place the defendant in court; and that his appearance under it, could not give the court jurisdiction of the defendant’s person. If Goodrich was, in fact, the attorney of defendant, and had been employed and retained by him, in relation to this particular case, he could make the agreement. An attorney may be employed in contemplation of a suit to be brought, and when thus employed, his client would be bound by his stipulation in relation to the same, to the same extent as if he had stipulated after the suit was instituted. On appeal, after the attorney making the stipulation has appeared to the action —after the court below, by rendering the judgment, has recognized his power to thus appear — and after the defendant himself, by praying a portion of the judgment and entering into a written agreement for the delivery of property to satisfy the execution, has recognized the right of the attorney to appear for hipi, wre are not prepared to say that he can object to the regularity of the proceedings in this respect. Prima facie, he is concluded by the agreement. If the attorney did not have the power, or the right to make the agreement, the remedy of the defendant lies in a different direction. He might enjoin the collection of the judgment, or hold the attorney responsible for all damages resulting from his unauthorized act; but upon the record, as it stands in this case, he would, upon appeal, be concluded.

Second. That the court rendered judgment without evidence, or rather without the production of the note upon which the suit was brought. There was no answer. What testimony was offered, does not appear. We must presume that it was sufficient. We will not presume that plaintiff did'not produce his note. Brady v. Malone, 4 Iowa, 118.

Third. That the. judgment is for a larger amount than is demanded in the petition. This is true. The plaintiff was entitled to no more than the amount claimed, with interest thereon from the time of the commencement of the suit to judgment. Haven & Birch v. Baldwin, 5 Iowa, 503; Butcher v. Brand, 6 Ib., 235. To the extent of the excess, the judgment is reversed, and in other respects affirmed.  