Legal Opinion

Marshall v. Romano

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas

Decided January 14, 1932PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

IÍABTSUOBNE, J.

This is a motion to substitute attorney for the plaintiffs and to compel present plaintiff’s attorney to deliver up evidence in the cause, such evidence being, among other things, a contract held by him for the purposes of the cause and originally drawn by him before the cause arose.

The present attorney resists such applications on the ground that his fees have not been paid, either for the original drawing of the contract in question or for his services in the preparation of the above cause for trial, including the filing of the complaint.

To this the client replies, through…

2Cited by4 opinions

  1. Jacob v. Norris, McLaughlin & MarcusSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1992
  2. Dwyer v. JungNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1975
  3. Echlin v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
  4. Hauck v. DanclarNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1993

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API