Shoemaker v. Stiles
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the court of Common Pleas of Lehigh county: Of January Term 1883, No. 252. This was an action on the case by Stephen Shoemaker, administrator of William Saeger, deceased, against John D. Stiles, to recover certain money received by the defendant as attorney for Saeger, in his lifetime, but claimed by the defendant for counsel fees.
Read the full summary
Error to the court of Common Pleas of Lehigh county: Of January Term 1883, No. 252. This was an action on the case by Stephen Shoemaker, administrator of William Saeger, deceased, against John D. Stiles, to recover certain money received by the defendant as attorney for Saeger, in his lifetime, but claimed by the defendant for counsel fees. On the trial, before Albright, P. J., the following facts appeared : On .December 23d 1869, Saeger recovered a verdict against the Lehigh Yalley Railroad Companjq in an action of damages, for the negligence of the company in burning his barn, and…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Trunkey
By itself the receipt is prima facie evidence that Saeger consented to the deduction of $1,000 by the defendant for his services; but it is by no means conclusive. A receipt is like any other parol admission of the party, and is open to explanation or correction ; and he may show that it was made by mistake, or does not exhibit the real state of facts : Rusell v. Church, 65 Pa. St. 9; Wharton on Contracts, § 938.
The parties were attorney and client. That relation gives l’ise to great confidence and the attorney is presumed to have the power to strongly influence his client, and to gain by his…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Kribbs v. JACKSONSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1957
- Lynch v. HookSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
- McFarland EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
- Balogh v. JacksonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Martin's PetitionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.