Hopper v. Ludlum

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Hopper v. Ludlum

41 N.J.L. 182

DecidedMarch 15, 1879

StatusPublished

This text of 41 N.J.L. 182 (Hopper v. Ludlum) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hopper v. Ludlum, 41 N.J.L. 182 (N.J. 1879).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Beasley, Chief Justice.

This was a suit by a counselor at law for his counsel fees. At the trial, a non-suit was ordered, the judge who presided assigning as his ground of action, “ a rule of law which says that no counsel can maintain a suit against his client for counsel fees, unless he can [183]*183show an express agreement upon the part of that client to pay a specific fee that is fixed upon as the counsel fee.”

This, as ifc'seems to me, was a correct exposition of the law as it has always existed and been understood in this state. Such is the rule embodied in the decisions of our courts; but it is not ne9essary for me to review these decisions, or to express, with any degree of elaboration, my views upon the subject, as I have so recently had occasion to do this in the case of Schomp v. Schenck, 11 Vroom 195.

I think the judgment should be affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Dalrimple, Depue, Knapp, Scudder, Woodhull, Clement, Dodd, Green, Lilly — 11. For reversal — None.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Beasley, Chief Justice.

This was a suit by a counselor at law for his counsel fees. At the trial, a non-suit was ordered, the judge who presided assigning as his ground of action, “ a rule of law which says that no counsel can maintain a suit against his client for counsel fees, unless he can [183]*183show an express agreement upon the part of that client to pay a specific fee that is fixed upon as the counsel fee.”

This, as ifc'seems to me, was a correct exposition of the law as it has always existed and been understood in this state. Such is the rule embodied in the decisions of our courts; but it is not ne9essary for me to review these decisions, or to express, with any degree of elaboration, my views upon the subject, as I have so recently had occasion to do this in the case of Schomp v. Schenck, 11 Vroom 195.

I think the judgment should be affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Dalrimple, Depue, Knapp, Scudder, Woodhull, Clement, Dodd, Green, Lilly — 11. For reversal — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 N.J.L. 182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hopper-v-ludlum-nj-1879.