Legal Opinion

McConnell v. Hall

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 20, 1915No. Appeal, No. 73PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Appeal, No. 73, April T., 1915, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Allegheny Co., April T., 1912, No. 526, on verdict for plaintiff in case of W. A. McConnell, and Thomas C. Lazear, Charles P. Orr and Jesse T. Lazear, partners as Lazear & Orr, now for use of Lazear & Blaster v. Sophia G. Hall. Assumpsit for fees. Before Evans, J. Prom the record it appeared, that the claim was for services rendered in litigation growing out of the estate of Ann Gunning, deceased.

Read the full summary

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Head, J.,

In the light of the facts established by the verdict we can perceive no legal obstacle in the way of the plaintiffs’ recovery. There was conflicting testimony on several issues, but it was all submitted to the jury in a charge that was as favorable to the defendant as she had any right to expect. Perhaps the most important of the facts established as stated is that, in the correspondence which was had between Judge Orr and Miss McConnell, the latter was the agent or representative of the defendant, and not of the plaintiffs. If so, when he stated to her the terms on which…

2Cases cited2 opinions

Mosgrove v. GoldenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1882
Horbach v. HueySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1835

3Cited by2 opinions

Pulling v. YeagerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
Pearson v. Kurtz Bros., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1923