Eickman v. Troll
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Plaintiffs, partners as Eickman & Meyer, -brought suit against the defendant in the district court for Le Sueur county. A writ of attachment was issued November 8, 1880, and on the same day levied on real estate of the defendant in that county.
Read the full summary
Plaintiffs, partners as Eickman & Meyer, -brought suit against the defendant in the district court for Le Sueur county. A writ of attachment was issued November 8, 1880, and on the same day levied on real estate of the defendant in that county. There was no service of the summons on defendant, either personally or by publication, but answer was made, and an appearance entered for defendant, by Peck & McHale, attorneys-at-law, on December 21, 1880. Subsequently, by stipulation of attorneys, judgment was entered for plaintiff. This appeal is taken by defendant from an order by Macdonald, J.,…
1Opinion of the CourtGileillan, C. J.
The motion to vacate the judgment was properly denied. No one can read the letter from defendant to Peck without understanding it as a request to defend the action, and as authorizing him to do what in his judgment, as an attorney, might be necessary to that end. It gave him authority to enter an appearance. The letter was not a privileged communication. It is only a communication made because of, and in the course of, the confidential relation of client and attorney, which is privileged. A mere request by one to an attorney to become and act as his attorney, is not made because of such…
2Cited by6 opinions
- People ex rel. Vogelstein v. Warden of the County JailNew York Supreme Court · 1934
- Baskerville v. BaskervilleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1956
- Ex Parte McDonoughCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Ex Parte EnzorSupreme Court of Alabama · 1960
- Henderson v. EckernSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1911
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.