Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/576

 5H FESIML 1tSt>(»l9ER.I �mterests as ' ' between the attomay s Qn that «oeount. > s This claim may or mwj'not be Woll founded in fa^tj 'thereis.not sufficient proof before the court fora 'Batisfactoryideterinih- ation of that question, and this prooeeding ianot well calcu- lated for that purpose and ahould not be ueed for it unless such a course is unavoidable. In this question the rights of the defendant are not'so'invblved that aay determination is to be made upon them, or alfected by them. If heacquired any rights in bar of the suit hy virtue of the agreement, he tfan have themtriod upon aproper plea, and have the proper judgment enteted; but trhether the plaintiff should. discon- tinue his suit Or not without triial inust be left wholly to him- solf or those standing in hisrightSj q,n'd ta his or theirpri)p- ei'ly-authorized attorileys, when ascertained.. .The couit,oan-' not propeiiytry his right to have the suit enided'in this mannef / n^teflfortfe an agreement todiscon*inQ'eKth«iBiJitby,&onipel-i iiug a diseontinuance, iifi suiehiah agreenlent BhonJa-befound; SUohia course wOHld ihterfere!with^*hfe &sla,bfi8hed proaednre of the cotiM, kidiwitki the" re of ■ the eaiai^t, -^hose' feffiieidii rdaty* irs^O'trepifesefi* iW pa'i'ties'"m; oouifa '"By vittu'b'of '>their^ eqipioynieiit; tteytmaJTi have.'ftuthotiiy to^ *afet' for 'theli: clfetfts t«uti' of- the parties 'thau' as officef 8 oi theooart.ii'-W&eB.as ih thia. <!ase, officefsj as acereditedi-attbrheys of 'the 'COiurt,''appear in-ooutt for a party as the only aittorneysj anfl afterWards ailother attotney/ a'ithbttgh eq-tfally accredited aaan offi^er of the court, appears and'claitiia^ tO control' the litigation to the exclusion of the others, it may' well 'be questioned, especially when the party is himaelf personally present in, court; whether the court should, tipon proceedings merely shown to have takeu place out of court and in vacation, allow any attorney but the flrst appearing to control the proceedings, until the party himself, in court, diacharges the first and substitutes the other in his place. But it is not neoessary to dispose of this question upon this ground ; there is another which lies deeper and more affects the rights of the plaintiff now under consider- ��� �