Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 Gill 95

Calvert v. Coxe

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided December 15, 1843

Court of Appeals of Maryland · decided 1843-12-15

This was an action of Assumpsit, commenced by the appellee against the appellant, on the 7th February 1837, to recover the value of certain professional services as an attorney and counsellor at law, rendered by the appellee to the testator of the appellant, and at his special instance and request. At October term 1837, the defendant pleaded non-assumpsit^ on which issue was joined.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 1859

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1843-12-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Archer, J.,

¶1delivered the opinion of this court.

¶2I am directed by the court to say that they approve of the opinion expressed by Judge Dorsey on all the exceptions in this case, except on the third and fifth exceptions of the appellant.

¶3I am further directed by a majority of the court on the third exception, to say that they think the court below were right in the opinion by them expressed in this exception.

¶4This court has, heretofore decided, that facts proved on a former trial by a deceased witness are admissible on a second trial of the same case. They would only be rejected on the presumption, that facts were proven on the first trial which were inadmissible as evidence. This we think we cannot intend; but the reasonable presumption is, that such facts were alone proved as were admissible, and it was proper the court should act on this presumption, upon the offer of the evidence, until the contrary appeared.

¶5On the fifth exception the court are divided. Those of us who maintain that the evidence offered as to what sum was paid to Mr. Johnson was inadmissible, think that what was paid to or demanded by one attorney, was not evidence in the cause. We cannot judicially know the standing of any one member of the bar, or the circumstances under which he was paid, or demanded a given sum for his services. What is the *117usual and customary compensation for services of the like kind is admissible testimony, but what was paid to any particular individual, standing per se, is in our opinion inadmissible.

/1/gill/95 · .json · Public domain