€82 FEDBEAL REPOBTEfi. ���Ogdensbuegh & Lake Champlain E. Co. ». The Nashua & LOWELL E. Co. �(Oireuit Court, B. New Hampshire. February 24, 1881.) �In Equity. Demurrer. �Sidney Bartlett and Wallace Hachett, for plaintiff. �F. A. Brooks, for defendants. �The bill in this case is like that passed upon in Ogdens- burgh e Lake Champlain B, Co. v. Boston e Lowell R. Corp., e Fbd. Eep. 64, and bas not been amended to meet the ob- iections sustained in that case. �The order must therefore must be : Demurrer sustained. ���Spakgleb V. Sellebs.* (Circuit Court, 8. B. OMo. February 16, 1881.) �1. Attoknet and Client — Attohkey tlNDBRTAKiîrG to Pbrfobm Serv- �ice Beïoni) Hi8 Employmbnt — Degreb of Skill. �If an attorney, employed to conduct a cause, undertakes to peif onn any service in regard to the case which, by his employment, he was not bound to do, unless specially directed by his client, he will be held tb the same strictness in the manner of its discharge as if within the terms of his contract. �2. Attornbt AT Law — Pbrfbct Lbciai, Knowledge not Requibed. �The undertaking of an attorney is not that he possesses perfect legal knowledge, or the highest degree of skill in relation to the busi- ness he undertakes, nor that he will conduct it with the greatest degree of diligence, care, and prudence. �3. Same — Ordinary Legal Knowledge and Obdinaet Diligence �Reqtjirbd. �But the undertaking of an attorney with his client is that he pos- sesses the ordinary legal knowledge and skill common to members of the profession, and that in the discharge of his duties he will exercise ordinary and reasonable diligence, care, and prudence. �*Reported by Messrs. Florien Glauque and J. 0. Ilarper, of the Cincin- nati i.ar. ����
