Brock v. Brock
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 96, April T., 1911, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., June T., 1905, No. 109, on certificate for defendants in case of Lem. S. Brock v. C. C. Brock and Franklin P. lams. Assumpsit to recover moneys collected by attorneys at law. Before MacFarlane, J. At the trial F. P. lams, one of the defendants, was asked this question: “Q. What did Cyrus C. Brock say to you?” Objected to by plaintiff’s counsel as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 96, April T., 1911, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., June T., 1905, No. 109, on certificate for defendants in case of Lem. S. Brock v. C. C. Brock and Franklin P. lams. Assumpsit to recover moneys collected by attorneys at law. Before MacFarlane, J. At the trial F. P. lams, one of the defendants, was asked this question: “Q. What did Cyrus C. Brock say to you?” Objected to by plaintiff’s counsel as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. The Court: In view of the other testimony the objection is overruled and exception noted. [1] “Q. What did Cyrus C.…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Henderson, J.,
The defendants were employed by the plaintiff as attorneys at law to recover by "legal process or settlement” certain shares of stock or the value thereof of a corporation called Mortgage Banking Company. One of the defendants, C. C. Brock, was first retained and afterward the other defendant was employed on an arrangement between the plaintiff and C. C. Brock. As the result of a somewhat protracted litigation the plaintiff recovered from the Mortgage Banking Company $18,779.75. Three thousand dollars of this amount were paid directly to the plaintiff by the defendant…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Balsbaugh v. FrazerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1852
- McKnight v. NewellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904