Reynolds v. Clark County
| Decision Date | 21 May 1901 |
| Citation | 63 S.W. 382,162 Mo. 680 |
| Parties | REYNOLDS v. CLARK COUNTY. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Clark county; E. R. McKee, Judge.
Action by Matthew G. Reynolds against Clark county. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
O. S. Callihan, for appellant. C. T. Llewellyn, for respondent.
The county court of Clark county employed plaintiff as attorney at law in litigation in which the county was sued on $20,000 of M. & M. R. R. F. B. coupons detached, as well as accrued interest from 1871 up to 1887, when the contract of employment was made. Some $50,000 was involved in the suit, which was then pending in the United States circuit court for the Eastern district of Missouri. Judgment went in favor of the county, and the cause was carried by appeal from such court by L. C. Whitford, the plaintiff therein, to the supreme court of the United States, where the judgment was reversed on a technicality, and cause remanded to the circuit court for retrial. The plaintiff in the case at bar attended to the case in the supreme court of the United States, and when the cause came back he prepared for trial, held a consultation with the county (his client), and advised that plaintiff had no case. The county then paid him $250, and by the terms of his contract he was entitled to $250 more, on the ground of attending to the case in the federal circuit court. With matters in this posture and with plaintiff holding himself in readiness to try the cause when it should be called, the county court, without communicating or consulting with plaintiff in regard to what they were about to do, compromised and settled the business for $4,000 in full settlement of the claim; thus, it seems, throwing away just that sum, as the claim sued on never could have been recovered, even in the federal court, which, it may be parenthetically stated, is saying much for the utter worthlessness of the claim. Being informed of what had been done behind his back, plaintiff presented his account for the remaining $250 to the county court, which refused to allow the amount, whereupon he appealed to the circuit court,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Graves v. Merchants & Mechanics Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
...Kelly, Judge. Judgment affirmed. C. P. Damron and A. M. Spradling for respondent. (1) Mills v. Met. St. Ry. Co., 221 S.W. 1, 5; Reynolds v. Clark Co., 162 Mo. 680; Kersey Garton, 77 Mo. 645-647; McCullough v. Baker et al., 47 Mo. 401-2-3; Perles & Stone v. Childs Co. (Mo.), 84 S.W.2d 1052, ......
-
Graves v. Merc. & Mech. Mutual F. Ins. Co.
...Hon. Frank Kelly, Judge. AFFIRMED. C.P. Damron and A.M. Spradling for respondent. (1) Mills v. Met. St. Ry. Co., 221 S.W. 1, 5; Reynolds v. Clark Co., 162 Mo. 680; Kersey v. Garton, 77 Mo. 645-647; McCullough v. Baker et al., 47 Mo. 401-2-3; Perles & Stone v. Childs Co. (Mo.), 84 S.W. (2d) ......
-
Johnson v. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis
...are now permitted by express statute. R. S. 1909, § 965, supra. Thereto the law accords with the gospel. Reynolds v. Clark County, 162 Mo. loc. cit. 684, 63 S. W. 382. That statute, held constitutional, has been more than once construed and administered blandly to advance its ends. It evide......
-
Robertson v. Manufacturing Lumbermen's Underwriters
... ... courts passing on same. Donaldson v. Allen, 213 Mo ... 293, 111 S.W. 1128, Reynolds v. Clark County, 162 ... Mo. 680, 63 S.W. 382; In re Watco Corp., 95 F.2d ... 249. (2) As ... ...