Campbell v. Barclay

4 F. Cas. 1156, 4 Biss. 517
U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois·Decided April 15, 1869·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

DRUMMOND, District Judge.

This is the rule that I have always adopted in these [1157]*1157cases, that where there is any agreement, understanding, negotiation, or any thing of the sort, as to the disposition of a case, and there is a difference of opinion between the counsel as to what actually took place, that, as it arises from the fact of the negotiations pending between the parties, although there may be a difference of opinion, or misunderstanding, I will not allow the party to be prejudiced by the misunderstanding. Where counsel deal with each other at arm’s-length, each standing on his own rights, of course there need be nothing of that sort; but where a negotiation is entered into between counsel, and difficulty and misunderstandings arise in consequence of that, I do not allow the party to be prejudiced. If you say that there never was anything of the kind at all; that there never was an agreement or understanding that the declaration should be given to them, and plea furnished by them. — that is another matter. If you say this is made out of whole doth, that is another matter.

Judgment set aside.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Campbell v. Barclay, 4 F. Cas. 1156, 4 Biss. 517 (circtndil 1869).

4 F. Cas. 1156 (Campbell v. Barclay) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

C. J. Huebel Co. v. MacKinnon
152 N.W. 1098 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1915)