Genrow v. Flynn
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne; Mandell, J. Assumpsit by Charles A. Genrow against William H. Elynn and E. J. R. Sevald, copartners as Flynn & Sevald, to recover back attorney’s fees paid defendants. A judgment for defendants on a verdict directed by the court is reviewed by plaintiff on writ of error.
1Opinion of the CourtStone, J.
This suit was brought to recover the sum of $335, which plaintiff claims to have paid to the defendants to bring and prosecute a suit to judgment in his behalf as hereinafter stated. It is the claim of the plaintiff that he paid this sum to the defendants, and that, although they instituted said suit, they failed to prosecute it, and he seeks to recover the entire sum paid to them.
*565The defendants were, and are, practicing attorneys at law in the city of Detroit. In the month of December, 1906, they were employed by the plaintiff to bring a suit for malpractice against a physician residing at…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Tenney v. . BergerNew York Court of Appeals · 1883
- Moyer v. CantienySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
- City of Detroit v. WhittemoreMichigan Supreme Court · 1873
- Millard v. JordanMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
3Cited by8 opinions
- Ambrose v. the Detroit Edison Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1975
- Plunkett & Cooney, Pc v. Capitol Bancorp LtdMichigan Court of Appeals · 1995
- Berry v. ZismanMichigan Court of Appeals · 1976
- Garey v. Kelvinator Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1937
- Mutter v. BurgessSupreme Court of Colorado · 1930
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.