Legal Opinion

Dwinelle v. Henriquez

California Supreme Court

Decided April 15, 1851PublishedCited by 10 opinions

Appeal from the superior court of the city of San Francisco. The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court,

Bennett, J,

The action was brought to recover compensation for services rendered by the plaintiff as attorney and counsellor. The defendant was the public administrator of the county of San Francisco, and the services of the plaintiff were concerning an estate, the administration of which had been committed to the defendant as public administrator. The plaintiff proved a written retainer in the following words:—-

“ San Francisco, June 25, 1850.
“ To Messrs. J. \V. Dwinelle and Nathl. Holland :
“ Gentlemen—You are severally requested to examine the “ estate of William A. Leidesdorff,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Hodgson v. DexterSupreme Court of the United States · 1803
  2. Brown v. AustinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1804

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Gurnee v. MaloneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
  2. In re Estate of PageCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
  3. Briggs v. BreenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  4. Byrne v. HarveyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
  5. In re Estate of CoutsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API