McLellan v. Hayford
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On exceptions. Assumpsit .on account annexed and for labor and services done and performed, and money paid and expended. Writ was dated October 6, 1877. Among the items in the plaintiff’s bill of particulars were the following: January, 1873. "To retainer to prevent Godfrey engaging me in matter of Willson, Tennant and Company.
Read the full summary
On exceptions. Assumpsit .on account annexed and for labor and services done and performed, and money paid and expended. Writ was dated October 6, 1877. Among the items in the plaintiff’s bill of particulars were the following: January, 1873. "To retainer to prevent Godfrey engaging me in matter of Willson, Tennant and Company. I make a charge of this, although it was paid to me by Mr. Hayford, because he has filed the amount in his account in set-off, §50.00” September, 1873. "To retainer in action of Willson, Tennant and Company in U. S. court, commenced by Bradbury, 50.00” October, 1874.…
1Opinion of the CourtBakiiows, J.
The question briefly stated, is whether in an action by a counselor at law against a client on an account annexed for services and disbursements in a number of suits embracing specific charges for all tlie services rendered and expenses incurred in minute detail, it is proper for the presiding justice, without proof of any agreement to pay any retainer fees (except *412in a single case where one of fifty dollars was paid in advance,) ■ and without proof of any custom or usage among lawyers to charge a retainer fee to their clients, to instruct the jury that "in contested cases and for reasonable…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Perry v. LordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
- Aldrich v. BrownMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
- Pierce v. ParkerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
3Cited by1 opinion
- Provanzano v. National Auto Credit, Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1998