Ostrander v. Capitol Investment, Building & Loan Ass'n
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Ingham; Wiest, J. Assumpsit by Russell C. Ostrander against the Capitol Investment, Building & Loan Association on a contract of employment. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error. For some time prior to April 5, 1890, plaintiff and Mr. Edward Cahill formed the law partnership of Cahill & •Ostrander, with offices at Lansing.
Read the full summary
Error to Ingham; Wiest, J. Assumpsit by Russell C. Ostrander against the Capitol Investment, Building & Loan Association on a contract of employment. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error. For some time prior to April 5, 1890, plaintiff and Mr. Edward Cahill formed the law partnership of Cahill & •Ostrander, with offices at Lansing. At that date Mr. Cahill was appointed a Justice of the Supreme Court, which appointment and acceptance terminated ipso facto the partnership, and it was formally dissolved on April 8th. Plaintiff continued the business thereafter in his own name…
1Opinion of the Court
Grant,. J.
(after stating the facts). 1. The principles of law applicable to this case are not in dispute, — in fact, are virtually conceded. They are: (1) A retainer of one member of a firm of attorneys is a retainer of the firm, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary; (2) a party may personally contract with one member of the firm for his legal services, and where such contract is proved it will be sustained. The same authorities that establish the first rule also recognize the second. Mechem, Partn. § 195; Smith v. Brittenham, 109 Ill. 540; Harris v. Pearce, 5 Ill. App. 622;…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Smith v. BrittenhamIllinois Supreme Court · 1884
- Harris v. PearceAppellate Court of Illinois · 1880
- Williams v. MoreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
3Cited by1 opinion
- Bossert Corp. v. City of NorwalkSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1968