Dooley v. Barker
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. cited : Edwardson v. 'Garnhart, 56 Mo. 81; Wag. Stat. 1041, sec. 18 ; Swift v. Wells, 2 How-. Pr. 79 Miller y. Hooker, 2 How. Pr. 171; Stewart v. Elwele, 3 Code R. 139 ; McCullough v. Brodie, 11 How. Pr. 346; s. c., 6 Deni.o, 659 ; .Harris v. Mead, 16 Abb. U. S. 257 ; Dickinson v. Mitchell, 19 Abb. U. S. 286. cited: Williams v. Allen, ■45 Mo; 573 ; Whitswell v. Willard, IMetc.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. cited : Edwardson v. 'Garnhart, 56 Mo. 81; Wag. Stat. 1041, sec. 18 ; Swift v. Wells, 2 How-. Pr. 79 Miller y. Hooker, 2 How. Pr. 171; Stewart v. Elwele, 3 Code R. 139 ; McCullough v. Brodie, 11 How. Pr. 346; s. c., 6 Deni.o, 659 ; .Harris v. Mead, 16 Abb. U. S. 257 ; Dickinson v. Mitchell, 19 Abb. U. S. 286. cited: Williams v. Allen, ■45 Mo; 573 ; Whitswell v. Willard, IMetc. (Ky.) 216 ; Silmeer v. Redfield, 19 Wend. 21; McMaster v. Booth, 2 Code R. Ill; Martin v. Hall, 26 Mo. 389 ; Robson v. Jones, 33 Tex.'324; Fitzgerald v. Hayward et al., 50 Mo. 516;…
1Opinion of the CourtBakewell, J.
This is an action brought-by an attorney against his client, for professional services.
With the petition is filed a bill of particulars, dated May 1, 1874, and containing no other date, and embracing eight items, as fellows':
*326To examination of title of Thomas’ lands........$ .30.00“
To consultations as to ability to make judgment out of Thomas................................. 50.00-
To injunction to prevent sale under Fitzgerald deed of trust.................................... 50.00-
To consultation and services as to sale of property held by Barker............................ 50.00
To making…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Dickinson v. MitchellNew York Supreme Court · 1865
- Harris v. MeadNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1863
- Ubsdell v. CunninghamSupreme Court of Missouri · 1858
3Cited by2 opinions
- Tietzel v. Southwestern Const. Co.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1939
- Briscoe v. KinealyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1879