Ward v. Watson
Nebraska Supreme Court
Appeal from the district court ■ for Lancaster county. Tried below before Bboady, J. In the pleadings but one question could be raised as to attorney fees, viz.: in regard to the existence of a contract for the same. Such contract being alleged, it was error to allow evidence as to quantum meruit. The Code requires new matter constituting a defense to be set up so that the opposing party may meet it.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the district court ■ for Lancaster county. Tried below before Bboady, J. In the pleadings but one question could be raised as to attorney fees, viz.: in regard to the existence of a contract for the same. Such contract being alleged, it was error to allow evidence as to quantum meruit. The Code requires new matter constituting a defense to be set up so that the opposing party may meet it. (A. & N. JR. Go. v. Washburn, 5 Neb., 117; Jones v. Bernard Go., 10 Id., 154; MoKyring v. Bull, 16 N. Y., 297; Clark v. Spenoer, 14 Kas., 398.) The question as to the reasonableness of an…
1Opinion of the CourtMaxwell, J.
This case seems to be an offshoot of Ward v. Watson, 24 Neb., 592. Watson recovered judgment against Ward for the sum of $749.60. Upon the recovery of this judgment Houston & Baird filed an attorney’s lien thereon for $374.89, that being the amount agreed upon between Wat*770son and his attorneys. In June, 1888, Ward recovered a judgment against Watson for the sum of $693 and costs, and this action was brought to set off one judgment against the other. On the trial of the cause the court allowed the attoimeys in question $150 and no more, and set off the balance of the judgment against that of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Ward v. WatsonNebraska Supreme Court · 1888
3Cited by2 opinions
- Field v. MaxwellNebraska Supreme Court · 1895
- State ex rel. Powers v. PartridgeNebraska Supreme Court · 1890