Phelps v. Hunt
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Assumpsit, to recover for services as an attorney; brought to the Court of Common Pleas of New Haven County. A new trial having been granted in the case, (40 Conn. R., 97,) the case was referred to an auditor, who reported that there was nothing due the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, to recover for services as an attorney; brought to the Court of Common Pleas of New Haven County. A new trial having been granted in the case, (40 Conn. R., 97,) the case was referred to an auditor, who reported that there was nothing due the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the following remonstrance against the acceptance of the report of the auditor. 1. The plaintiff having testified in chief that his charges in his bill of particulars were reasonable, was asked on cross-examination, what was his customary charge in 1870, per day, for appearing on trials before a justice of the…
1Opinion of the CourtLoomis, J.
The errors assigned in the plaintiff’s motion are all founded upon the refusal of the court to reject the report of the auditor for the reasons alleged in the remonstrance.
1. After the plaintiff had testified in chief that the charges in his bill of particulars were reasonable, the auditor allowed the defendant, against the objection of the plaintiff, to ask him on the cross-examination what his customary charge per day was in 1870 for appearing before a justice of the peace.
If this inquiry furnished any test of the reasonableness of the plaintiff’s charges it was clearly admissible. The…
2Cited by6 opinions
- State v. SegarSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1921
- People v. ManchellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
- Coffin v. Board of Com'rsU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Kansas · 1902
- Bridges v. BranamIndiana Supreme Court · 1893
- C. L. Flaccus Glass Co. v. GavinSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1916
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.