Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/738

 BOOERS V. S. E. LEE MINING CO 723 �(Hare & Wallace's Notes,) part 4, pp. 1216-12£j. It does not, in my opinion, appear that respondent Marshall cautioned and ad- vised his client, the complainant, as fully as the law, as above set forth, required. �An attorney who knows nothing of the value of property offered for sale by his client, and is aware that, his client is in like ignorance upon that subject, is bound, before advising a sale by the client to a Etranger, and a fortiori before attempting to purchase from the client himself, to make careful inquiry and to inforna himself as fully as possible concerning such value. If a etranger had appeared and opened negotiations with complainant for the purchase of her interest in the mine, and she had applied to Marshall, as her attorney, for advice concerning the snfficiency of the price offered, it would have been his duty, being himself ignorant upon the subject, to advise an investigation by a competent person, as a means of ascertaining the probable or approximate value of the property. �It is true that Marshall had, up to the time when negotiations for a purchase by him commenced, been the attorney of complainant only for the purpose of def ending her title, and having no occasion to inquire into the question of the value of the mine; but the moment these negotia- tions were opened the relation was changed, and it became his duty to use due diligence to ascertain the value of the property as nearly as possible, and to advise complainant or her agent. It was at least his duty to suggest an investigation by the usual method. If he had, without knowledge as to the value of the property, and without sug- gesting an investigation, advised a sale to a third party at a price which proved to be inadequate, it is clear that he would have failed in his duty, and it is equally clear that he could not purchase upderlike circumstances. His own ignorance as to the value of the property, Bo far from being a circumstance in his favor, is a strong reason for holding that he was bound to inform himself, so as to be able to- advise his client. �4. I hold furtherthat the respondent Marshall, before consunimat- ing his purchase from complainant, was bound to disclose to her, or her agent, the names of all persong interested with him in the pur- chase, and espeeially that her partners in the mine were secretly inter- ested as such purchasers. The rule is that the attorney must make a full disclosure of every fact which might influence the decision by the client of the question of the sale. Ail the presumptions are against the attorney. The court cannot presume that the fact ihat her partners were secret purchasers with Marshall would have had no ��� �