Heartt v. Chipman
Supreme Court of Vermont
ERROR from Addison county court. The action below was assumpsit, for work and labour, care and diligence, &c. and for money had and received. Plea, the general issue. Upon the trial of this cause, after issue joined, the plaintiffs offered in evidence, to support the issue on their part, the following facts, viz.
Read the full summary
ERROR from Addison county court. The action below was assumpsit, for work and labour, care and diligence, &c. and for money had and received. Plea, the general issue. Upon the trial of this cause, after issue joined, the plaintiffs offered in evidence, to support the issue on their part, the following facts, viz. That at the December term of the county court for said county, the plaintiffs were employed by one Benjamin Heartt, to commence an action of trespass in the name of Benjamin and Jonas C. Heartt, against Elisha Clark and Andrew McFarland. The suit was tried sundry times, and a final…
1Opinion of the Court
Skinner, Ch. J.
delivered the opinion of the court.
The lien which the law recognises is, as contended by the defendant’s counsel, confined tt> attorney fees-; and although by the law of this state, no distinction is made between the office of attorney and counsellor, they being regarded as the same, yet the extra fees of counsel for argument, &c. are not, by the practice of the court, thus secured. The rule, as adopted in the English courts, as also in the courts of the neighbouring states, has obtained in this state. 1 Bac. Ahr. title attorney, letter E. — 5 Taunt. 429. — 5 Bos. & Puller…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Martin v. HawksNew York Supreme Court · 1818
3Cited by7 opinions
- Weed Sewing Machine Co. v. BoutelleSupreme Court of Vermont · 1884
- Stewart v. FlowersMississippi Supreme Court · 1870
- Smalley v. ClarkSupreme Court of Vermont · 1850
- Hurlbert v. BrighamSupreme Court of Vermont · 1883
- Braden v. WardSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1880
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.