Legal Opinion

Procter v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Decided December 16, 1913PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Appeal from Warren Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Miller

Affirming.

These appeals involve only tlie fees for services rendered by Dr. A. T. McCormack as a physician, and by B. F. Procter as an attorney, in the action of R. E. Lynch against the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company for personal injuries.

Having been injured in a collision upon appellee’s road at Rockland, Tennessee, Lynch and his brother-in-law, Niemeyer, made the following contract of employment with Procter:

“This obligation witnesseth, that I have employed B. P. Procter to adjust by suit or compromise a claim for myself and for E. B. Niemeyer for…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Montgomery County Fiscal Court v. TrimbleCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1898
  2. Byassee v. EvansCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1911
  3. Wathen v. WathenCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1912
  4. Kirkpatrick's Exor. v. E. Rehkoph Saddlery Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1911
  5. Elk Valley Coal Mining Co. v. WillisCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1912

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Downey v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1924
  2. Arkansas Foundry Company v. PoeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1930
  3. Griggs v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1920
  4. Matheney v. CommonwealthKentucky Supreme Court · 2006
  5. Matheney v. CommonwealthKentucky Supreme Court · 2006

2 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