Cowan v. Barret & Brotherton
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. 1. There was evidence tending to show that Barret acted as counsel for plaintiff, which should have gone to the jury. 2. If he did thus act, the plaintiff was entitled to the relief prayed for. Galbraith v. Elder, 8 Watts, 81. Horfcenbury v. Carlisle, 5 Watts & Serg. 848. 3. The fact that Cowan did not receive the deeds under which he claimed the land, until after Brotherton’s purchase, is immaterial.
Read the full summary
Error to St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. 1. There was evidence tending to show that Barret acted as counsel for plaintiff, which should have gone to the jury. 2. If he did thus act, the plaintiff was entitled to the relief prayed for. Galbraith v. Elder, 8 Watts, 81. Horfcenbury v. Carlisle, 5 Watts & Serg. 848. 3. The fact that Cowan did not receive the deeds under which he claimed the land, until after Brotherton’s purchase, is immaterial. The plaintiff never had any interest in the Yasquez claim until long after the imputed misconduct on the part of the defendant. The plaintiff acquired…
1Opinion of the CourtRyland, Judge
It will be seen from the statement of the charges in the plaintiff’s petition, that the basis of his action against the defendant, Barret, is upon the ground of improper conduct, as attorney at law for the plaintiff, in some business in relation to land claims in the years 1845 or 1846, up to the sale of the *258land in November, 1848, at which said sale in November, 1848, tbe defendant, by bis agent, Brotherton, purchased a portion of tbe land, under an adverse claim to tbe plaintiff ; that tbe plaintiff claims and charges that be was tbe owner of three-fourths of a claim of Pierre Yasquez to a…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Gypsy Oil Co. v. SchonwaldSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1924
- Wilkerson v. FarnhamSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- Yeamans v. JamesSupreme Court of Kansas · 1882