Herrick v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 27 November 1884
• Parties: FRED. G. HERRICK <I>vs.</I> MINNEAPOLIS & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 435

32 Minn. 435

FRED. G. HERRICK vs. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

November 27, 1884.

After the decision of a former appeal in this action, which is reported in 31 Minn. 11, a new trial was had in the district court for Freeborn county, before Farmer, J., and a jury, and plaintiff had a verdict for $2,000. Judgment was entered and the defendant appealed.

Upon the trial the defendant offered in evidence a written contract between the plaintiff and Lovely & Morgan, his attorneys, wherein, after reciting that the plaintiff has no money to prosecute this action, the plaintiff in consideration of Lovely & Morgan agreeing to conduct the suit and to make no charge against him for their services in case they fail to collect anything from the railway company, employs and retains them to prosecute the action and to collect his claim from the railway company, and agrees that they may retain as compensation for their services and expenses in this action fifty per cent. of the entire sum collected. This was excluded by the court, upon the ground that it was immaterial and did not give Lovely & Morgan such an interest in the cause of action as required them to be joined as parties plaintiff.

J. D. Springer, for appellant.

Lovely & Morgan, for respondent.

By the Court. There is nothing in the point that the cause of action was in part assigned to Lovely & Morgan. The other points raised are identical with those decided by this court on the former appeal, (see 31 Minn. 11,) and we adhere to that decision.

Judgment affirmed.