Kansas City, Fort Scott & Memphis Railroad v. Joslin
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Craighead Circuit Court, Jonesboro District. The demurrer to the complaint should have been sustained. Acts 1899, p. 154; 73 S. W. 1096. A verdict for defendant should have been directed. 84 N. W. 342; 29 Fed. 614; 21 S. W. 1047; 62 S. W. 712; Minor, Confl. Laws, 371; 54 Am. St. 45; 45 Ark. 420; 47 Ark. 378; 80 N. W. 779; 21 la. 523; 49 N. E. 222.
1Opinion of the CourtHiix, C. J.
Joslin, an attorney, sued the railroad company for a reasonable fee claimed to be due him because the railroad company had compromised with a client of his a suit in -which he had an interest under a contract with the client. The action is predicated on section 4457, Kirby’s Digest. The railroad company demurred to the complaint, which was overruled,, and it excepted, and, after a judgment against it, 'the ruling of the court on the demurrer was assigned as error in the motion for new trial. The complaint did not allege that the contract assigning the plaintiff an interest in the cause of…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Railway Co. v. AmosSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1891
- McKinney v. DembySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1884
- Hibbard v. KirbySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1881
- Leggett v. GrimmettSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1880
- Bowden v. SpellmanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1894
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Bush v. Prescott & Northwestern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
- Davis v. OaksSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1933
- Hall v. HuffSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1914
- Edwards v. JonesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1938
- London v. McGeheeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1916
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.