Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/736

 EOGERS ». B. B. LEE MINING CO. 721 ���EoGEES V. E. E. Lee Mining Co. and othera. �{Circuit Court, D. Colorado. December 6, 1881.) �1. Attornby and Client — Oontbacts betwben Them— Whbn Voijdablb. �A contract of purchase and sale between an attorney and client is voidable at the election of the latter, where the attorney, while negotiating for the pur- chase of the ptoperty, is acting for the client in a litigation of which it is the subject-matter, and is called upon to advise the client, as an attorney, as to how far such litigation is likely to afEeot his title to the property, or the value of his interest in it. �In Equity. �Luther S. Dixon, for plaintiff. �Wells, Smith e Mason, for defendants. �MoCbaby, g. J. 1. It is not necessary to decide the question whethor an attorney at law can, nnder any circumstances, purchase pendente lite, from his client, the subject-matter of a litigation in which he is employed and acting, �2. Equity will not uphold such a sale, even upon a showing of good faith, where it appears, as in this case, that the attorney, while negotiating for the purchase of the property, was at the saine time, and as part of the negotiation, advising the client as to the probable outcome of the litigation concerning it. It is difficult to see how it is possible for an attorney, under such circumstances, to deal with his client at arms-length ; for the client's acceptance or rejection of any proposition for a purchase by the attorney, must depend upon the nature of the advice he recoives from him touching the pending litigation. In other words, the attorney must, as to an important part of the negotiation, represent both sides ; that is, his own private interest, and the opposing interest of his client, — a thing which is manifestly contrary to law and abhorrent to equity. The client must in such a case act upon the attorney's advice and opinion as to the merits of the pending litigation about the property, and by the light of such advice he must fix the price at which he will sell. Even if under some circumstances the property in controversy in a suit may, pending the suit, be sold by the client to the attorney, I am of the opinion that a court of equity ought to hold that such a sale is abso- lutely void, if the attorney, while negotiating as a purchaser, is called upon to advise the client, as an attorney, as to how far a pending lit- igation is likely to affect his title to the property, or the value of his interest therein. �v.9,no.l3— io ��� �