case johnson v ogilby et all Lord chancellor Talbot Eq can ab pl a attorney  for and on behalf of his client the defendant promise to pay pound to the  plaintiff this be do by the authority of the client the attorney be not liable  but only the client by if the attorney have no authority from his lend to make  this engagement the bill be for a specific performance of a agreement on this  case Margaret Quineo and the plaintiff Robert Johnson have some difference as  to four freehold house in Silverstreet London upon compromise those difference  it be agree between they that the say Margaret Quineo and Robert Johnson shall  join in a fine and recovery which shall be as to two of the house to the use  of Margaret Quineo and her heir and as to the other two house to the use of  the plaintiff Robert Johnson and his heir which fine and recovery be accord  levy and suffer after this Margaret Quineo pretend she be then a feme covert  and marry to the defendant ogilby whereupon peer William Robert Johnson bring  a bill against ogilby and his wife to discover whether she be marry when she  levy the fine and suffer the recovery and to be relieve against the fraud to  which bill the defendant ogilby and his wife put in their answer insist on her  be then a feme covert and that she be not bind by such fine and recovery  thereupon the plaintiff Johnson prefer a bill of indictment against the  defendant Margaret for a cheat and for the fraud in levy a fine and suffer a  recovery at the court of common plead as a feme sole when at the same time she  be under coverture the indictment be find upon not guilty plead be bring to a  trial but just before the trial be to have come on the party come to a  agreement that the plaintiff shall assign over his right to the premise and  the defendant pay the plaintiff pound and one Mr Heaton who be the defendant  attorney on this indictment alone sign the agreement for and on the behalf of  his client ogilby and his wife Johnson also sign the agreement which be leave  in the hand of one Mr callard a three person and the defendant Margaret be  hereupon acquit for want of prosecution afterward the money not be pay the  plaintiff Johnson bring his bill against ogilby and his wife and Mr Heaton the  attorney and it be insist that Heaton by sign this agreement be become  personal liable and have take upon himself as a surety for his client to pay  the money that as a attorney can it must be admit undertake for his client so  here he have do it peer William Lord chancellor the difference be where the  party thus undertake for and on the behalf of his client have a authority so  to do and where he have not if such undertaker have no authority then it be a  fraud and the undertaker ought himself to be liable so where a solicitor open  bid in the name of a imaginary person he be order to stand as best bidder at  the price at which he open the bid Molesworth v Opie dick but where there be  such a authority give as here there be to the attorney this be only act for  another like the case of a factor or broker act for their principal who be  never hold to be liable in their own capacity in which his lordship be very  clear the bill as to this point be dismiss against Heaton the attorney with  cost then the Lord chancellor start another point videlicet that this be a  criminal prosecution and the agreement be to stifle a criminal prosecution be  therefore not to be execute in equity Collins v Blantern will peer William er  p to which I answer that it be true in the case of a prosecution for felony a  agreement to stifle such a prosecution be not lawful but where the indictment  be for a fraud and the party wrong by the fraud come to a agreement to be  satisfy for such injury as in conscience he ought to be this be lawful matter  of fraud be cognisable and relievable as well in equity as at law vol  wherefore this objection be no further insist on all that appear by the Reg b  be this that the cause come on to be hear c his lordship declare that the  agreement in the bill mention be such as ought not to be carry into execution  b this court and that the defendant Heaton be no way bind thereby or affect  therewith and the plaintiff not now pray a foreclosure the bill be to be  dismiss against the defendant Heaton with cost and against the other defendant  without cost Reg lib a fol