Walker v. Goodrich
Illinois Supreme Court
Goodrich, as surviving partner of Giles Spring, deceased, sued Frink and Walker, in assumpsit, for services performed for the latter parties, as their attorneys. Walker pleaded the general issue, the statute of limitations, and a plea of set-off. Upon these pleas, issues were made up, and a trial was had before J. M. Wilson, Judge, and a jury, at February term, 1855, of the Common Pleas Court.
Read the full summary
Goodrich, as surviving partner of Giles Spring, deceased, sued Frink and Walker, in assumpsit, for services performed for the latter parties, as their attorneys. Walker pleaded the general issue, the statute of limitations, and a plea of set-off. Upon these pleas, issues were made up, and a trial was had before J. M. Wilson, Judge, and a jury, at February term, 1855, of the Common Pleas Court. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff below, for ¡¡¡3,000, and a motion for a new trial was made and overruled. Walker then appealed. It appears from the bill of exceptions, that Spring and Goodrich…
1Opinion of the Court
Catón, J.
The evidence in this case was abundantly sufficient to justify the jury in finding that Spring and Goodrich were retained by the defendants below, to defend the chancery suit, and also that the services which they performed, were not over estimated by the jury in their verdict. It would not be instructive, nor would it be profitable to review the evidence on these points. It is sufficient to state that it has been examined by the court, and that we are satisfied with it.
The principal question in the case arises under the plea of the statute of limitations, and on this question it…
2Cited by21 opinions
- Matchett v. RoseAppellate Court of Illinois · 1976
- Ervin v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1984
- Ennis v. Pullman Palace Car Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1896
- Frates v. NicholsDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1964
- Morgan v. RobertsIllinois Supreme Court · 1865
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.