¶1If a warrant of attorney had been given to Mr. Gibson, the gentleman first employed, he would have been exclusively entitled to the attorney’s fees. But this not being the case, the defendant had a right to employ as many attorneys as he pleased; and it appears that the three gentlemen were employed generally, to appear, without any distinction made or contemplated between their duties as counsel and attorney. We can only judge of the nature of their employment, by what they did, and all of them appear equally to have performed the duties of attorneys. All, therefore, are equally entitled to divide the attorneys’ fees.
12 F. Cas. 1027
Hurst v. Durnell
U.S. District Court
Decided April 15, 1806
U.S. District Court · decided 1806-04-15
This was a motion made to try the question, whether Mr. Gibson was entitled to the attorney’s fees in the ejectments — [see Cases Nos. 6927 and 6936] — 80 or 100 in number-brought by the lessor of Hurst, against a number of persons in the Northern Liberties; or whether Ingersoll and Rawle. are not entitled to share those fees with him.
Decided 1806-04-15