Legal Opinion

Schomp v. Schenck

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided June 15, 1878PublishedCited by 11 opinions

The plaintiff was an attorney at law, and brought this suit against the defendant for moneys alleged to be due for services rendered as such attorney, under a special contract. It was shown at the trial that the defendant was interested in resisting the probate of the will of the late Dr. "Vanderveer, and that he had put in a caveat which had been drawn by the plaintiff.

Read the full summary

The plaintiff was an attorney at law, and brought this suit against the defendant for moneys alleged to be due for services rendered as such attorney, under a special contract. It was shown at the trial that the defendant was interested in resisting the probate of the will of the late Dr. "Vanderveer, and that he had put in a caveat which had been drawn by the plaintiff. The testimony of the plaintiff, in proof of his bargain, was as follows : “ He,” the defendant, “ said he couldn’t afford to go to much expense, and asked me what I would charge him; he said that if the will were set aside,…

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Beasley, Chief Justice.

This suit is brought to recover the amount alleged to be due to the plaintiff for certain services rendered, as an attorney at law, to the defendant, and which were to be paid for at a certain rate, according to the terms of a parol contract made between them. At the time of this engagement of the plaintiff, a proceeding was pending before the surrogate-general, touching the probate of a will, against which the defendant had filed a caveat, and, as has been found by the jury, the plaintiff was duly employed by the defendant to…

2Cited by11 opinions

  1. In Re Resorts International, Inc.United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · 1990
  2. Lohmann v. LohmannNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1958
  3. Sweeney v. VenezianoNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1961
  4. Hughes v. EisnerNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1950
  5. Dinter v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1995

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API