Brome v. Cuming County
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error to the district court for Cuming county. Tried below before Powers, J. cited, contending that, in the absence of express statutory prohition, a county may employ counsel: Smith v. Mayor, 13 Cal., 531; Hornblower v. Duden, 35 Id., 670; Clark v. Dyon Co., 8 Nev., 181; Ellis v. Washoe Co., 7 Id., 293; Tatloclc v. Louisa- Co., 46 la., 138; State v. Patterson, 40 N. J. L., 186; Memphis v. Brown, 2 Wall. [U. S.], 289-321; Memphis v. Adams, 9 Heisk. [Tenn.], 518; Butcher v.…
Read the full summary
Error to the district court for Cuming county. Tried below before Powers, J. cited, contending that, in the absence of express statutory prohition, a county may employ counsel: Smith v. Mayor, 13 Cal., 531; Hornblower v. Duden, 35 Id., 670; Clark v. Dyon Co., 8 Nev., 181; Ellis v. Washoe Co., 7 Id., 293; Tatloclc v. Louisa- Co., 46 la., 138; State v. Patterson, 40 N. J. L., 186; Memphis v. Brown, 2 Wall. [U. S.], 289-321; Memphis v. Adams, 9 Heisk. [Tenn.], 518; Butcher v. Camden, 29 N. J. Eq., 478; Wilhelm v. Cedar Co., 50 la., 524; Gillespie v. Broas, 23 Barb. [N. Y.], 379. cited,…
1Opinion of the CourtNor val, J.
The board of supervisors of Cuming county retained the plaintiff in error, an attorney at law, to assist the county attorney in the prosecution of suits brought against several ex-county clerks and their bondsmen to recover moneys alleged to have been received by said county clerks during their respective terms of office in excess of the compensation allowed by law, and not reported to the county board, nor paid into the county treasury. The county board allowed the plaintiff in error the sum of $150 as a retainer *364fee in said actions, whereupon Emil Pleller, a taxpayer, took an appeal to the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- United States v. TynenSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- United States v. ClaflinSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Pierpont v. CrouchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
- Trustees of Phillips Academy v. KingMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1815
- People ex rel. Navano v. Van NortNew York Supreme Court · 1872
3Cited by13 opinions
- State ex rel. Workman v. GoldthaitIndiana Supreme Court · 1909
- State ex rel. Churchill v. BemisNebraska Supreme Court · 1895
- Fancher v. Board of CommissionersNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1921
- State v. Omaha Elevator Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1906
- State Ex Rel. Frohmiller v. HendrixArizona Supreme Court · 1942
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.