Szok v. Crown
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 19, April T., 1907, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., March T., 1900, No. 1,114, on verdict for plaintiff in case of John Szok v. Joseph Crown. Assumpsit against an attorney at law for a balance collected. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Error assigned was in refusing binding instructions for defendant.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Morrison, J.,
In the spring of 1898 the plaintiff made a contract with the defendant, an attorney at law, to collect a claim of something over $1,000 against .the Pulaski Building and Loan Association. It is conceded that the defendant undertook to collect the claim and pay over to the plaintiff the sum of $950, retaining for his services the amount he should recover in excess of that sum. The plaintiff, however, averred and testified that the defendant was to pay him $1,000 and retain the excess. This, however, is not the material dispute in the case and it is not contended that…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Brockley v. BrockleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888
- Martin v. FrantzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
- Crawford v. Forest Oil Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
- Flynn v. HurlockSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
- Daly v. DallmeyerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Brush Hat Manufacturing Co. v. AbelesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Osbourn v. Magee Carpet Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1917
- Osterling v. RoseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926