Fenno v. English
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Ap-peal from Pulaski Circuit Court. Hon. John J. Clendenin, Circuit Judge. 1. The testimony of Gallagher should have been excluded. 2 Stark. Ev. 578; 1 Tidd 536; 1 Phil. Ev. 191; 4 Con.
Read the full summary
Ap-peal from Pulaski Circuit Court. Hon. John J. Clendenin, Circuit Judge. 1. The testimony of Gallagher should have been excluded. 2 Stark. Ev. 578; 1 Tidd 536; 1 Phil. Ev. 191; 4 Con. R. 55. 2. English had no authority to substitute Williams in his stead as attorney. 18 Wend. 485; 4 Litt. 412; Story on Agency 12, 13,14; 2 Kent 495, sec. 41; 1 Lio. on Agency sec. 5,p. 54, 56. 1. It is competent for an attorney at law to employ a substitute. 10 Ver. 68; 15 lb. 61; 3 W. S. 77; 4 Litt. 416. 2. The right of action of an attorney for fees commences with the termination of the suit in which he is…
1Opinion of the Court
Hon. Harris Flanagin, Special Judge,
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This action was brought by English against Fenno, before a justice of the peace on the 12th day of January 1858, on the following account:
“ JOSEPH FENNO, DR.
To E. H. English,
1857. Defending you in case of State Bank vs. Carroll, Fenno, Danley and others, being suit on Carroll’s bond as Bank attorney, on which you were security — Pulaski Circuit Court.. -$100 00
Judgment was rendered for English, and Fenno appealed. A trial was had in the Circuit Court, which resulted in a verdict and judgment for English.
At the trial, the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Thompson v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1959
- Saint Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co. v. LanzaDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1955
- Boynton v. BrownSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912