
    Julian W. Chadwick, Resp’t, v. Jerome F. Manning, App’lt.
    
      (City Court of New York, General Term,
    
    
      Filed November 4, 1889.)
    
    Attobney and client—Client cannot dispute attobney’s authobity TO PROCUrE BONDSMEN AFTER AVAILING HIMSELF OF THE BENEFIT OF SUCH ACT.
    Defendant made default in a certain action, which was opened on condition that he execute an undertaking with sureties. His attorney procured plaintiff to become surety and the latter was subsequently obliged to pay costs upon the undertaking. Held, that defendant by availing himself of the order opening the default ratified the act of his attorney, and he could not thereafter dispute his authority to procure the bondsman.
    Appeal from judgment entered on verdict in favor of plaintiff.
    
      P. Carpenter, for app’lt; W. J. Weldon, for resp’t.
   Per Curiam.

The defendant was sued in the U. S. circuit court, and a default was taken against him which was opened by order of the court upon condition that the defendant executed to the plaintiff an undertaking with one or. more sureties, conditioned to pay upon demand all costs which might be awarded against the defendant in the action, not exceeding $100. The plaintiff at the request of the defendant’s attorney in that action executed the required bond. The defendant availed himself of the order opening the default, and thereby ratified and approved of the giving of the undertaking that secured him this benefit. He subsequently tried the cause in the H. S. circuit court, and was defeated. The plaintiff was obliged to pay fifty dollars costs upon his undertaking, and the present action is to recover this sum as so much money paid to the defendant’s use. It is too late now for the defendant to dispute the authority of his attorney in procuring a bondsman for his benefit. See Palen v. Starr, 7 Hun, 422. The defendant by availing himself of the plaintiffs act ratified the authority under which it was done, Story on Agency, §§ 252 to 260 ; Meehan v. Forrester, 52 N. Y., 277, and is liable for the consequences. The law in the absence of an express promise on the part of the principal to indemnify the surety, implies a promise of indemnity to prevent injustice. Baylies on Sureties, 340. Both sides requested the direction of a verdict, Green v. Shute, 26 N. Y. State Rep., 114, and the trial judge properly directed it in favor of the plaintiff. The direction was clearly right, and the judgment entered upon it must be affirmed, with costs.

McAdam, Ch. Ehrlich and Holme, JJ., concur.  