Chirac v. Reinicker

Supreme Court of the United States · 1826 · Evidence

24 U.S. (11 Wheat.) 280 (1826)

Updated August 22, 2026

Evidenceattorney-client privilegeprofessional confidencemesne profitsejectmentthird partieslandlord liabilitycotrespasser

Facts

The plaintiffs had previously recovered possession of the premises in ejectment, where J. C. F. Chirac was admitted to defend as landlord under the common consent rule. In the mesne profits action, the plaintiffs sought to question attorneys about whether the defendant had retained them to defend the ejectment for his benefit as landlord, and they also sought to prove that the defendant was in fact the landlord, received the rents and profits, and resisted the plaintiffs' recovery. The trial court excluded that evidence and also gave instructions requiring proof that all plaintiffs were proper heirs and treating an amendment adding the husband of one female plaintiff as a fatal variance. The plaintiffs challenged those rulings.

Issue

Whether questioning counsel about being retained by the defendant to defend the ejectment as landlord improperly sought disclosure of confidential communications. Also, whether in a mesne profits action the plaintiffs could prove that a nonparty to the ejectment was the actual landlord and a cotrespasser, despite the ejectment record naming another landlord and despite objections based on estoppel and variance.

Rule

Confidential communications between client and attorney may not be disclosed, and a question is improper when, in substance, it seeks disclosure of the client's communicated title or claim made for purposes of the defense. In an action for mesne profits against a person who was not a party to the ejectment, the ejectment recovery binds only parties and privies; as to third persons, the ejectment record is not evidence of title against them, though the plaintiff may use the recovery and executed writ of possession to show possession and may independently prove title and that the defendant, as actual landlord or other actor, aided, commanded, procured, or cooperated in withholding possession and thus was a trespasser.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a trespass action over farmland near Columbus, Ohio, Lydia Moran calls attorney Evan Pike, who represented Nolan Price in an earlier possession suit involving the same tract. Moran asks Pike, "Were you retained by Nolan Price to defend that earlier case as owner of the farm?"

Should the court permit the question?

Explanation. The majority drew a distinction between a bare question about whether counsel was employed and a question that goes further by tying the employment to the client's asserted status or title. Asking whether counsel was retained "as owner" or in some equivalent title-bearing capacity necessarily discloses the claim communicated to counsel for purposes of the defense, which is protected professional confidence.