C. V. Fornes & Co. v. Wright, Baldwin & Haldane
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Pottawattamie District Court. — Hon. H. E„. Deemer, Judge. Action for the recovery of money deposited with defendants to secure surety on attachment bond. From an order sustaining a motion for a new trial as to defendant Wright, and overruling a motion for a new trial as to defendant Baldwin, defendants appeal.
1Opinion of the CourtKinne, J.
I. In June, 1885, plaintiff firm was a. jobber in woolen goods in New York City. At the same time George F. Wright, John N. Baldwin, and Charles Haldane were lawyers, and constituted the firm of Wright, Baldwin & Haldane. Said firm was-engaged in the law business at Council Bluffs, Iowa. At about said time, plaintiff placed in the hands of said firm for collection, a claim against one John Finken, a merchant tailor, carrying on business in said city. After receiving the claim, Wright, Baldwin & Haldane advised plaintiff that it would be necessary *393to sue out an attachment against said Finken,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Union Bank of Georgetown v. GearySupreme Court of the United States · 1831
- Moulton v. BowkerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
- Nelson v. CookIllinois Supreme Court · 1858
- Clark v. RandallWisconsin Supreme Court · 1859
- Jenney v. DelesdernierSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1841
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Burtch v. Ganz (In Re Mushroom Transportation Co.)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2007