Boyd v. Johnson
Decision Date | 09 April 1924 |
Docket Number | 6. |
Citation | 125 A. 697,145 Md. 385 |
Parties | BOYD v. JOHNSON. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Superior Court of Baltimore City; James P. Gorter Judge.
Action by J. Cookman Boyd against J. Frank Johnson. From a judgment for plaintiff for an insufficient amount, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before BOYD, C.J., and THOMAS, PATTISON, URNER, ADKINS OFFUTT, and DIGGES, JJ.
Emil Budnitz, of Baltimore (J. Cookman Boyd, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.
Charles Jackson and Arthur R. Padgett, both of Baltimore, for appellee.
This suit in this case was brought by the appellant against the appellee upon a written contract, signed by the appellee and others, which is as follows:
[Signed] J. Frank Johnson.
Marian M. Johnson.
Geo. I. Young. Myrtle M. Smith."
On the 22d day of June, 1920, the appellant filed the caveat mentioned in the contract, and, as stated by him in his testimony, the appellee on several occasions thereafter visited his office to give him information which he thought would be useful in the prosecution of the caveat; but after a short time the appellee reached the conclusion that he did not wish to proceed further with the caveat, so far as he was concerned, and asked the appellant to have his name stricken from the proceedings as a party thereto. This was not done, however, and later, some time in August, as stated by the appellant, the appellee wrote to him to the same effect. On September 6th, no action having been taken by the appellant upon the request of the appellee, Messrs. Haman, Cook, Chestnut & Markell wrote the appellant, saying:
It would seem from the record that nothing was heard from the appellant in response to this letter, and on September 14th thereafter the appellee by letter directed Messrs. Haman, Cook, Chestnut & Markell to file an order dismissing the caveat so far as he was concerned, and the following order was filed by them on September 27th:
The caveat, however, not having been dismissed by all the caveators, the case thereunder proceeded to trial, and the will was set aside. Thereafter this suit, brought upon the aforesaid contract and tried by the court without a jury,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Zerkowsky v. Zerkowsky
... ... setting aside of the will by others after the client had ... withdrawn from the contest ... Boyd v ... Johnson, 145 Md. 385, 125 A. 697; Western U. Tel. Co. v ... Semmes, 73 Md. 9, 20 A. 127 ... A ... client may at any time for ... ...
-
Palmer v. Brown
...the contract of employment and to effect a settlement of his claim without his former attorney's intervention, knowledge or consent (Boyd v. Johnson, supra), but it equally well settled that for services rendered in good faith in part performance of the cancelled contract the attorney may r......