Thurston v. Diggs

D.C. Circuit

Thurston v. Diggs

47 App. D.C. 145, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 2609

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 3, 1917

DocketNo. 3036

StatusPublished

This text of 47 App. D.C. 145 (Thurston v. Diggs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thurston v. Diggs, 47 App. D.C. 145, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 2609 (D.C. Cir. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cuiuam:

Appellant, Sarah J. Thurston, plaintiff, below, sued defendant, Charles P. Diggs, to recover the sum of $1,541.30 retained by Diggs as attorney’s fees out of a sum collec;;ed in a suit conducted by him on behalf of plaintiff’s husband. It appears that the validity of this claim was litigated in a former case, which was disposed of by this court on appeal. Diggs v. Thurston, 39 App. D. C. 267. When this became apI arent in the course of the trial below, the court held that it was res judicata, and instructed a verdict for defendant. Prom the judgment this appeal was taken. The judgment was right, and is affirmed, without costs. Affirmed.

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

Pee Cuiuam:

Appellant, Sarah J. Thurston, plaintiff, below, sued defendant, Charles P. Diggs, to recover the sum of $1,541.30 retained by Diggs as attorney’s fees out of a sum collec;;ed in a suit conducted by him on behalf of plaintiff’s husband. It appears that the validity of this claim was litigated in a former case, which was disposed of by this court on appeal. Diggs v. Thurston, 39 App. D. C. 267. When this became apI arent in the course of the trial below, the court held that it was res judicata, and instructed a verdict for defendant. Prom the judgment this appeal was taken. The judgment was right, and is affirmed, without costs. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 App. D.C. 145, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 2609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thurston-v-diggs-cadc-1917.