Sheehy v. Duffy
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of tbe circuit court for Brown county: Samuel D. ILastiNgs, Jb., Circuit Judge. On June 9,1886, tbe plaintiff entered into a contract witb tbe defendants, wbo were copartners as attorneys, by wbicb they were to prosecute ber claim and agreement assigned to ber by one Colton against St. Patrick’s Congregation of Pond du Lac, and sbe agreed to pay them in full for such ■services $150 in case of recovery, but, if they did not recover tbe amount claimed to…
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of tbe circuit court for Brown county: Samuel D. ILastiNgs, Jb., Circuit Judge. On June 9,1886, tbe plaintiff entered into a contract witb tbe defendants, wbo were copartners as attorneys, by wbicb they were to prosecute ber claim and agreement assigned to ber by one Colton against St. Patrick’s Congregation of Pond du Lac, and sbe agreed to pay them in full for such ■services $150 in case of recovery, but, if they did not recover tbe amount claimed to be due, or some part of it, they were not to charge or receive anything for their services from that date; their…
1Opinion of the CourtPiNNey, J.
1. The finding of the jury that the services ■of the defendants -&ere rendered under the written contract consisted of a single point or proposition, and disposed of the substance of the issue in favor of the plaintiff, leaving it .as a mere matter of computation upon undisputed facts to ■ascertain for what amount judgment should be given in her favor. With this verdict remaining in force, judgment ■could not have been given for the defendants. Judgment non obstante veredicto is given where the defendants’ plea confesses the action and does not sufficiently avoid it. 2 Tidd Pr. 920. It will…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Etting v. Bank of United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1826
- Barreda v. SilsbeeSupreme Court of the United States · 1859
- Smith v. SmithNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Hoffman v. KingWisconsin Supreme Court · 1888
- Iasigi v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1855
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Davis v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1896
- Muench v. HeinemannWisconsin Supreme Court · 1903
- Menominee River Sash & Door Co. v. Milwaukee & Northern RailroadWisconsin Supreme Court · 1895
- Conroy v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
- Slivitski v. Town of WienWisconsin Supreme Court · 1896
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.