Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/904

 892 FEDEBAIi BEPOBTEB. �ney in changing the verdict, and but for which the plaintiff would have recovered the entire land. �In Walker v. Ooodman, 30 Ala. 482, the declaration al- leged that the defendants conducted the suit, in which they had been employed- by the plaintiff, negligently and unskil- fully, in not having a certain writ of attachment, affidavit, and declaration drawn up and filed according to the laws of the state and the rules of the court; that by reason of said negligence and unskilfulness she was prevented from reoov- ering judgment, and was forced and compelled to release and dismiss the levy of said writ of attachment, by reason whereof the plaintiff was prevented from recovering her de- mand. This declaration was demurred to, and the [court below sustained the demurrer; but this judgment was re- versed by the supreme court upon error. This case also shows that the damage was the direct reault oî the negligence of the attorney. Goodman v, Walker, Ex'r, 30 Ala. 482, was an action brought by the attorneys for their fees, and the court, finding the facts as in the last-preceding case, beld that lawyers were responsible to their clients for ail injury tracea- hle to their want of skill and diligence. �Ail these cases show clearly that but for the negligence the loss would not have occurred, and therefore resulted directly from it. I am aware that Wharton, Neg. 752, says that when negligence bas been proved, in consequence of which judgment bas gone against the client, it is not incum- bent upon the client to show that but for the negligence he could have succeeded in the action. It is for the solicitor to defend himself, if he can, by showing that the client bas not been hurt by his negligence. And the same doctrine is stated by Wells' Attorney and Client, 298 ; but eaeh of these au- thors, in support of the text, refers to Godefroy v. Jay, 7 Bing. 413, and to Harter v. Morris, 18 Ohio St. 492, as hold- ing a different doctrine, and these are the only authoritiea they refer to upon this proposition. I bave examined the case of Godefroy v. Jay oarefuUy. In that case the attorney was employed to defend an action brought against the plain- ����