Lungerhausen v. Crittenden
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Macomb. (Moore, J., presiding.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtHooker, J.
The plaintiffs are practicing attorneys, and brought an action for services rendered to the defendant in certain litigation wherein he was a party, and for some minor services about which no controversy appears now to exist.
*174The litigation referred to is for convenience called the e< Gallup Case.” The plaintiffs'claimed that the defendant promised to pay them well for their services in the matter, • — to pay them as much as he paid to Judge Baldwin or Mr. Chadwick, who were connected with the case; and the court instructed the jury that a verdict might be rendered upon that theory, if the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Eggleston v. BoardmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1877
- Achey v. HullMichigan Supreme Court · 1859
- Phelps v. HuntSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1873
- Kent Furniture Manufacturing Co. v. RansomMichigan Supreme Court · 1881
3Cited by6 opinions
- Kolka v. JonesNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1897
- People v. KongealMichigan Supreme Court · 1920
- Hertzberg & Noveck v. Ira J. SpoonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1982
- Mitchell v. KennadyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1921
- Asplund v. Calumet & Hecla Mining Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1913
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.