CUNNINaEAU V. OOUNTT 07 BALLS. 45a �died pending the proceedings, and a revivorship was had in the name of the administrator de bonis non ; that this new plaintiff did not enter into any contract or ratify the old one ; and that, therefore, the power given to the attorney to com- promise could not be considered as applicable to matters as they stood on final hearing. Now, I suppose, when a con- tract is made by a party he who susceeds in interest to him is bound by the original contract. �But this motion is against a defendant that has paid be- tween $9,000 and $10,000, to declare ail the proceedings had under the cireumstances void, and hold that company liable to execution for the whole amount of the original judgment ; a part of the agreement to compromise being that the defend- ant insurance company should dismiss its writ of error in the supreme court of the United States, which it has done. How can you put this company into its original position ? It must lose this amount of money; is out of the supreme court, and is remediless by the fault of the original plaintiff, and the contract which he chose to enter into. Such would be neither justice nor right, without going into the extreme pro- position as to whether an attorney employed in the case has a right to compromise it. In this case there was a specifie contract, and I overrule the motion. ���CONNINGHAM V. CoUNTT OP BaLLS. {Circuit Court, E. JD. Missouri. March 27, 1880.) �JuBiBDicTioN — Action Against CoinsrTr — Rev. St. of Missouki, \ 5359. — Section 5359 of the Revised Statutes of the state of Missouri, which provides that " ail actions whatever against any couuty shall be commenced in the circuit court of such county," etc., does not deprive the federal courts of jurisdiction in an action against a county of such Btate brought by the citizen of another state. �r>emurrer to plea to the jurisdiction. Overall d Judson, for plaintiff. Henry A . Cunningham, for defendant. ��� �
