
    
      Ex parte Ferguson.
    A Sr attorney of this court had collected money for the relator by suit, which he had not paid over. On an affidavit of these facts, a motion was now made for a rule that the attorney pay over the money ; or shew cause why an attachment should not issue against him. But the affida-v¡t did not shew that a demand of the money had been made of the attorney,
    Money collected by an at-tomey for his client, must be fonTthlfclient can move for an attachment for its non-pay'* ment.
    
      L. Hoyt, for the motion.
    It was not opposed. But
   Per Curiam.

The money should first have been demanded. The motion must, for that reason, be denied.

Motion denied,  