Dowling v. Eggemann

Michigan Supreme Court

Dowling v. Eggemann

10 N.W. 187, 47 Mich. 171, 1881 Mich. LEXIS 449

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 26, 1881

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 10 N.W. 187 (Dowling v. Eggemann) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dowling v. Eggemann, 10 N.W. 187, 47 Mich. 171, 1881 Mich. LEXIS 449 (Mich. 1881).

Pincite

Opinion

Marston, C. J.

We are of opinion that the plaintiff did not make out a case to be submitted to a jury. No fraud, duress, oppression or undue advantage was practiced or taken, nor was there any mistake make in the settlement. The attorney for his professional services had a lien upon the moneys collected by him, and in settling and paying over the proceeds, he had a right to ask for a final settlement and insist upon receiving a receipt for the moneys paid. It appears that Mrs. Eggemann had full and ample opportunity to examine the account submitted; that she fully understood the same; was advised by the defendant, and could have consulted with attorneys as to the reasonableness of the charges made, but did not do so. Yiew the matter in whatever light we may, still we are unable to sustain this judgment.

We are of opinion that the plaintiff below was bound by the settlement made, and that the judgment should be reversed with costs and a new trial ordered.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Marston, C. J.

We are of opinion that the plaintiff did not make out a case to be submitted to a jury. No fraud, duress, oppression or undue advantage was practiced or taken, nor was there any mistake make in the settlement. The attorney for his professional services had a lien upon the moneys collected by him, and in settling and paying over the proceeds, he had a right to ask for a final settlement and insist upon receiving a receipt for the moneys paid. It appears that Mrs. Eggemann had full and ample opportunity to examine the account submitted; that she fully understood the same; was advised by the defendant, and could have consulted with attorneys as to the reasonableness of the charges made, but did not do so. Yiew the matter in whatever light we may, still we are unable to sustain this judgment.

We are of opinion that the plaintiff below was bound by the settlement made, and that the judgment should be reversed with costs and a new trial ordered.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 N.W. 187, 47 Mich. 171, 1881 Mich. LEXIS 449, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dowling-v-eggemann-mich-1881.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack