Gower v. Emery
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Assumpsit against Emery, Stimpson, and Buxton, on an alleged promise to indemnify the plaintiff for attaching, as deputy sheriff, a stock of goods, in the possession of one Lawrence, as his property, on a writ against him in favor of Emery and Stimpson. Emery was defaulted.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit against Emery, Stimpson, and Buxton, on an alleged promise to indemnify the plaintiff for attaching, as deputy sheriff, a stock of goods, in the possession of one Lawrence, as his property, on a writ against him in favor of Emery and Stimpson. Emery was defaulted. J. D. Kinsman, counsellor at law, was called by the plaintiff, and testified, that Buxton and Stimpson came to Portland with the writ, just before the goods were attached ; that Stimpson called on him for professional advice; that he went with him to the lodgings of Buxton, and was there introduced to Buxton; and that he…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was by
Weston C. J.
The privilege of a client, in regard to confidential communications, made by him to his counsel, was fully investigated and discussed, in Foster v. Hall, 12 Pick. 89. It cannot be necessary to go over the same ground. We refer to that case, and the authorities there cited, as presenting a fair and full elucidation of the doctrine. It is there said, that the privilege, although extended to all cases, where the advice of counsel is sought, whether in reference to a suit contemplated or pending, or not, ought to be strictly construed ; as it has a…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bond v. WardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810
3Cited by12 opinions
- Turner's Appeal From ProbateSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1899
- Koeber v. SomersWisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
- Horrabin v. City of Des MoinesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1924
- Lesher v. GetmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
- Stanley v. StanleyWashington Supreme Court · 1902
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.