Wilson v. Minneapolis & Northwestern Railroad
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of the municipal court of Minneapolis, refusing a new trial.
1Opinion of the CourtDickinson, J.
The plaintiffs are copartners in the practice of' their profession as attorneys. This action is for the recovery of compensation for services performed by them as attorneys in defending a certain action which was prosecuted and tried in the district court, against this defendant. Upon trial of the ease now under consideration, without a jury, a recovery of $475 was awarded.
1. One of the questions of fact in the case was as to whether the defendant employed the firm of Wilson & Lawrence, or only Wilson, personally. The court finds that the copartnership was employed. *482The evidence sustains this…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Cochran v. ToherSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1869
- Saveland v. GreenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1876
- Durkee v. Vermont Central RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1856
- Morgan v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court · 1871
3Cited by14 opinions
- Pepper v. Telegraph Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1889
- Bond v. HurdMontana Supreme Court · 1904
- Terryll v. City of FaribaultSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1901
- Ayer v. Western Union Telegraph Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1887
- Lundgren v. Union Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.