Morton v. Forsee
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court —Hon. G. A. Mosmcm, Judge. (1) The pretended fee contract was inadmissible in evidence and should have been excluded from the consideration of the case. White v. Tolliver, 20 So. 97; Dickinson v. Bradford, 59 Ala. 581; Ryan v. Ash-ton, 42 Iowa, 365; Nesbit v. Lockman, 34 N. Y. 167; Place v. Haywood, 117 N. Y. 497; Bingham v. Sheldon, 91 N. Y. Supp. 917; Greenfield’s Estate, 14 Pa.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court —Hon. G. A. Mosmcm, Judge. (1) The pretended fee contract was inadmissible in evidence and should have been excluded from the consideration of the case. White v. Tolliver, 20 So. 97; Dickinson v. Bradford, 59 Ala. 581; Ryan v. Ash-ton, 42 Iowa, 365; Nesbit v. Lockman, 34 N. Y. 167; Place v. Haywood, 117 N. Y. 497; Bingham v. Sheldon, 91 N. Y. Supp. 917; Greenfield’s Estate, 14 Pa. St. 504; Thomas v. Turner, 87 Ya. 1; Staley v. Dodge, 50 Ill. 45; Elmore v. Johnson, 143 Ill. 513; Burnham v. ITaseltine, 82 Me. 495; Huguenin v. Baseley, 14 Ves. 273; Oleine v.…
1Dissent
DISSENTING OPINION.
WALKER, J.
I am unable to concur in the majority opinion. While the wisdom or utility of dissenting opinions is questionable, a mere declaratory dissent, unsupported by a reason therefor, is purely *440nebulous, serving only to provoke conjecture.” To avoid this attitude, I will state the reasons for my non-concurrence.
I. The terms of the contract made by the defendant with the attorney so far as concerns the matter in issue is as follows:
"I hereby authorize James F. Pitt, Esquire, to represent me as counsel in the defense of the above entitled cause, and for his services as…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Skouten v. WoodSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
- Shirk v. NeibleIndiana Supreme Court · 1901
- Elmore v. JohnsonIllinois Supreme Court · 1892
- Thomas v. Turner's Adm'rSupreme Court of Virginia · 1890
- L. Waterbury & Co. v. City of LaredoTexas Supreme Court · 1887
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.