Barthell v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Winneshiek District Court.— Hons. L. E. Eel-lows and A. N. Hobson, Judges. Action at law to recover attorney’s fees for services rendered one Chas. P. Barker. The trial court directed a verdict for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtDeemer, J.
One Barker had some horses killed by one of defendant’s trains, and he employed the plaintiffs, who are attorneys at law, to bring suit against the company to recover the value of the horses so killed, agreeing to give them, for services rendered and to be rendered, fifty per cent, of whatever was received from the defendant. Barker also agreed that plaintiffs should have the settlement of the suit. Pursuant to this employment suit was brought for Barker by these attorneys, and in the original notice, which was signed by plaintiffs as attorneys for Barker, they stated: “You are further…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Boardman v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1868
- Small v. C., R. I. & P. R.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1881
- Jeffries v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of NYSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Kusterer v. City of Beaver DamWisconsin Supreme Court · 1883
- Larned v. City of DubuqueSupreme Court of Iowa · 1892
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Denson v. Alabama Fuel & Iron Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1916
- Newport Rolling Mill Co. v. HallCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1912
- Greenleaf v. Minneapolis, St. Paul, & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1915
- Ahalt v. GatewoodSupreme Court of Kansas · 1921
- Crosby v. HatchSupreme Court of Iowa · 1912
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.