Zabriskie v. Woodruff

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Zabriskie v. Woodruff

7 A. 336, 48 N.J.L. 610, 1886 N.J. LEXIS 16

DecidedJune 15, 1886

StatusPublished

This text of 7 A. 336 (Zabriskie v. Woodruff) 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

Zabriskie v. Woodruff, 7 A. 336, 48 N.J.L. 610, 1886 N.J. LEXIS 16 (N.J. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of-the court was delivered by

The Chancellor.

The judgment in this case was in an action brought by Mr. Woodruff, a counselor-at-law, against Mr. Zabriskie, to recover costs and counsel fees which he claimed to be due to him from Mr. Zabriskie for his services, &c., as attorney and counsel for him in certain suits in the Supreme Court. The dispute was as to the counsel fees. There was evidence that Mr. Zabriskie agreed to pay a specific sum for Mr. Woodruff’s services as counsel in the suits, and the court held and so charged the jury that if there was such agreement Mr. Woodruff was entitled to recover thereon. That was in accordance with the decision of this court in Hopper v. Ludlum, 12 Vroom 182. The judgment should be affirmed.

For affirmance—The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Depue, Magie, Reed, Van Syckel, Brown, Cole, Mc-Gregor, Paterson, Whitaker. 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

The Chancellor.

The judgment in this case was in an action brought by Mr. Woodruff, a counselor-at-law, against Mr. Zabriskie, to recover costs and counsel fees which he claimed to be due to him from Mr. Zabriskie for his services, &c., as attorney and counsel for him in certain suits in the Supreme Court. The dispute was as to the counsel fees. There was evidence that Mr. Zabriskie agreed to pay a specific sum for Mr. Woodruff’s services as counsel in the suits, and the court held and so charged the jury that if there was such agreement Mr. Woodruff was entitled to recover thereon. That was in accordance with the decision of this court in Hopper v. Ludlum, 12 Vroom 182. The judgment should be affirmed.

For affirmance—The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Depue, Magie, Reed, Van Syckel, Brown, Cole, Mc-Gregor, Paterson, Whitaker. 11.

For reversal—None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A. 336, 48 N.J.L. 610, 1886 N.J. LEXIS 16, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zabriskie-v-woodruff-nj-1886.