Orr v. Brown
Decision Date | 17 June 1895 |
Docket Number | 380. |
Citation | 69 F. 216 |
Parties | ORR et al. v. BROWN et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
J. A Orr, for plaintiffs in error.
E. H Bristow, for defendants in error.
Before PARDEE and McCORMICK, Circuit Judges, and BRUCE, District judge.
There is but a single assignment of error in the cause, and that is that the court sustained the demurrer, and dismissed the suit at the cost of the plaintiffs. The demurrer was to the declaration of the plaintiffs, alleging for cause that it did not disclose a contract between Orr & Orr and Brown & Lowndes which renders them liable for the demand sued on in this action. The declaration sets out the following correspondence between plaintiffs and defendants, to wit:
P.O. Box 65, Telephone Call 547.
'Office of Brown & Lowndes, Bankers & Brokers.
'Baltimore, Sept. 11th, 1893.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Davis v. Trimble
...985; 3 Wash. 755; 61 Ill. 96; 37 Ohio St. 479; 40 S.W. 155; 34 Ga. 328; 9 John. 142; 70 Ill. 19; 29 Minn. 129; 111 Mass. 504; 20 N.H. 205; 69 F. 216. The verdict reasonable. Weeks, Attys. 694, 697, 698. The peremptory instruction was properly refused. 37 Ark. 164, 259, 580; 35 Ark. 146; 33 ......
-
Blair v. Columbian Fireproofing Co.
...410, 39 Am. Rep. 343; Blackman v. Webb, 38 Kan. 668, 17 P. 464; Clendinen v. Black, 2 Bailey (S. C.) 488, 22 Am. Dec. 149; Orr v. Brown, 69 F. 216, 16 C. C. A. 197. But payment can be collected for a retainer only to extent of reasonable compensation for entering into the new relation in th......