Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

29 Minn. 124

Eickman v. Troll

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided May 9, 1882

Supreme Court of Minnesota · decided 1882-05-09

Plaintiffs, partners as Eickman & Meyer, -brought suit against the defendant in the district court for Le Sueur county. A writ of attachment was issued November 8, 1880, and on the same day levied on real estate of the defendant in that county. There was no service of the summons on defendant, either personally or by publication, but answer was made, and an appearance entered for defendant, by Peck & McHale, attorneys-at-law, on December 21, 1880.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1882-05-09

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently January 1960

6 state decisions

20188218901900191019201930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Gileillan, C. J.

¶1The motion to vacate the judgment was properly denied. No one can read the letter from defendant to Peck without understanding it as a request to defend the action, and as authorizing him to do what in his judgment, as an attorney, might be necessary to that end. It gave him authority to enter an appearance. The letter was not a privileged communication. It is only a communication made because of, and in the course of, the confidential relation of client and attorney, which is privileged. A mere request by one to an attorney to become and act as his attorney, is not made because of such relation, but for-, the purpose of creating it. The fact of the retainer or employment may be proved by the attorney, although any communication beyond that, though made at the same time, may not be.

¶2Order affirmed.

/29/minn/124 · .json · Public domain