Summary
In Humphrey v. Hurd, 31 Mich. 436, the attorney had advised the client to buy an outstanding claim in one Chapman. The client refused to buy it as he considered it of no consequence. Later the attorney was employed by another to procure the Chapman title for him; this he did. It was held that the later transaction was not invalid by reason of the attorney's former employment.
Summary of this case from Oviatt v. SmithOpinion
May, 1920.
Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur.