Little v. Lee
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant, Judson W. Lee, from a judgment of tbe Municipal Court of the City of Minneapolis, Chas. B. Elliott, J., entered December 5, 1892. Tbe plaintiffs, M. O. Little and Alexander H. Nunn, were partners in business practicing law at Minneapolis, and bad been employed as sucb by Judson W. Lee and E.. W. Backus, co-partners, and bad acted for them as tbe'ir attorneys in several actions and matters in wbicb tbey were interested.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant, Judson W. Lee, from a judgment of tbe Municipal Court of the City of Minneapolis, Chas. B. Elliott, J., entered December 5, 1892. Tbe plaintiffs, M. O. Little and Alexander H. Nunn, were partners in business practicing law at Minneapolis, and bad been employed as sucb by Judson W. Lee and E.. W. Backus, co-partners, and bad acted for them as tbe'ir attorneys in several actions and matters in wbicb tbey were interested. On April 19, 1892, tbe attorneys bad a settlement with tbeir clients, and a balance of $450, was found due tbe attorneys. Tbe clients soon after paid tbe…
1Opinion of the CourtVanderburgh, J.
This action is brought to recover a balance due upon an account stated, for professional services, alleged to have been performed for the defendant and one Backus, who were therefore jointly liable therefor.
But the complaint further shows that Backus had paid over to defendant his half of the claim for the use and benefit of the plaintiffs, “and upon the agreement and understanding between said Lee and Backus and that said Lee should pay the amount to plaintiffs.” The complaint presents on its face the excuse for the nonjoinder of Lee. These allegations are put in issue by the general denial…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- City of Chaska v. HedmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
3Cited by1 opinion
- City of Chaska v. HedmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893