Finnish Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Patek

Michigan Supreme Court

Finnish Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Patek

200 N.W. 991, 229 Mich. 47, 1924 Mich. LEXIS 836

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 10, 1924

DocketDocket No. 83.

StatusPublished

This text of 200 N.W. 991 (Finnish Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Patek) 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

Finnish Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Patek, 200 N.W. 991, 229 Mich. 47, 1924 Mich. LEXIS 836 (Mich. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant Shankey, aided by defendant Patek as his attorney, recovered a judgment against plaintiff herein. A dispute arose between defendants as to the amount due as attorney's fees and charges. The attorney claimed a charging lien on the judgment. Plaintiff filed a bill of interpleader. The issue between the defendants is purely one of fact. There is a conflict in direct testimony without other evidence or circumstances worthy of note. One defendant testified that the attorney was to have one sum. The other defendant testified of another sum. Each was supported by corroborating testimony. The trial judge who heard the witnesses and saw them on the stand found and decreed in favor of defendant Patek. Defendant Shankey has appealed.

After a careful reading of the record, we must decline to disturb the decree made. It is affirmed, with costs to defendant Patek against the other defendant.

McDONALD, BIRD, SHARPE, MOORE, STEERE, FELLOWS, and WIEST, JJ., concurred. *Page 49

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

Defendant Shankey, aided by defendant Patek as his attorney, recovered a judgment against plaintiff herein. A dispute arose between defendants as to the amount due as attorney's fees and charges. The attorney claimed a charging lien on the judgment. Plaintiff filed a bill of interpleader. The issue between the defendants is purely one of fact. There is a conflict in direct testimony without other evidence or circumstances worthy of note. One defendant testified that the attorney was to have one sum. The other defendant testified of another sum. Each was supported by corroborating testimony. The trial judge who heard the witnesses and saw them on the stand found and decreed in favor of defendant Patek. Defendant Shankey has appealed.

After a careful reading of the record, we must decline to disturb the decree made. It is affirmed, with costs to defendant Patek against the other defendant.

McDONALD, BIRD, SHARPE, MOORE, STEERE, FELLOWS, and WIEST, JJ., concurred. *Page 49

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 N.W. 991, 229 Mich. 47, 1924 Mich. LEXIS 836, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/finnish-mutual-fire-insurance-co-v-patek-mich-1924.