Legal Opinion
Van Cott v. Wall
Utah Supreme Court
Decided December 10, 1918No. 3274PublishedCited by 10 opinions
Appeal from the District Court of Salt Lake County, Third ■ District; Hon. J. Louis Brown, Judge. Action by Waldemar Van Cott and others against Enos A. Wall.. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtFrick, C. J.
The plaintiffs, as partners and attorneys, at • law, commenced this action to recover a balance that they alleged was dne them as attorneys’ fees for legal services rendered by them for the defendant at his request.
In view that it is seriously contended that the complaint is deficient in certain particulars, we here insert the same, with the exception of the formal parts. The complaint reads:
“That on or about the 1st day of November, 1916, at Salt Lake City, Utah, the defendant employed plaintiffs as attorneys and counselors to take charge of the interests of defendant in certain litigation…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- McGuire v. DrewCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Chapman v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1870
- Vanwey v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1874
- Taylor v. KiddWashington Supreme Court · 1913
- Kullberg v. O'DonnellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1893
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Gorostieta v. ParkinsonUtah Supreme Court · 2000
- Perrin v. Union Pac. R.Utah Supreme Court · 1921
- State v. AikersUtah Supreme Court · 1935
- De Recat Corp. v. DunnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
- Reperex, Inc. v. May's Custom Tile, Inc.Court of Appeals of Utah · 2012
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.