Legal Opinion

In Re Hamilton's Estate

Montana Supreme Court

Decided April 19, 1934No. 7,241PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

It is apparent from the petition of Jeanie Dale Farguhar, and others as originally filed, that it was drafted upon the theory that the attorneys for petitioners had rendered services which inured to the benefit of all interested in the James L. Hamilton estate, which they alleged they would be compelled to pay unless ordered paid out of the assets of the estate; and under the common fund doctrine, they claim they are equitably entitled to have the services of their attorneys paid out of the estate.

The general rule is that an attorney must show a contract of employment in order to recover for…

2Cases cited47 opinions

  1. Trustees v. GreenoughSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
  2. In re Donges's EstateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1899
  3. Carroll v. KingMontana Supreme Court · 1921
  4. Pickens v. DavisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1883
  5. Forrester v. Boston & Montana Consolidated Copper & Silver Mining Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1904

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Rowe v. EggumMontana Supreme Court · 1938
  2. Hooker v. HoskynsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1958
  3. In Re Smith's Estate, Davies v. SmithUtah Supreme Court · 1945
  4. In Re Baxter's EstateMontana Supreme Court · 1934
  5. Clifford v. DavisMontana Supreme Court · 1934

1 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