Carl v. Wonder
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the common pleas of York county. This was an action on the case by Martin Carl, guardian of Mary Carl, against John Wonder, intermarried with Mary Carl. The' material facts of the case were these: The plaintiff, having certain claims in right of his ward, employed counsel to prosecute them, and made an agreement with them to pay them for their services.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the common pleas of York county. This was an action on the case by Martin Carl, guardian of Mary Carl, against John Wonder, intermarried with Mary Carl. The' material facts of the case were these: The plaintiff, having certain claims in right of his ward, employed counsel to prosecute them, and made an agreement with them to pay them for their services. While the suits were pending, his ward married the defendant, who, soon after, compromised with the persons upon whom the claims were, and received the money. The counsel employed by Martin Carl claimed their compensation, and he paid…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Kennedy, J.
Upon no principle whatever can this action be *98maintained against Wonder alone. It is-not pretended that the defendant ever made any express promise, for the breach of which it can be sustained; so that if it can be maintained at all, it must be upon an implied promise. If the plaintiff had had a right to receive the money paid over to the defendant by the sureties of the administrators of John Carl, deceased, or had had even a lien upon it for the purpose of enabling him to compensate the counsel employed to prosecute the suit commenced for…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Shollenberger's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1853
- Daniels v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Fournier v. IngrahamSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1844
- Huber's Estate, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lancaster County1922