Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

47 Mich. 171

Dowling v. Eggemann

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 26, 1881

Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1881-10-26

Assumpsit on the common counts and an account stated to recover back money which plaintiff claims to have paid defendant upon an extortionate charge for his professional services. Defendant brings error.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 1895

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed · Decided 1881-10-26

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Marston, C. J.

¶1We are of opinion that the plaintiff did not make out a case to be submitted to a jury. No fraud, duress, oppression or undue advantage was practiced or taken, nor was there any mistake make in the settlement. The attorney for his professional services had a lien upon the moneys collected by him, and in settling and paying over the proceeds, he had a right to ask for a final settlement and insist upon receiving a receipt for the moneys paid. It appears that Mrs. Eggemann had full and ample opportunity to examine the account submitted; that she fully understood the same; was advised by the defendant, and could have consulted with attorneys as to the reasonableness of the charges made, but did not do so. Yiew the matter in whatever light we may, still we are unable to sustain this judgment.

¶2We are of opinion that the plaintiff below was bound by the settlement made, and that the judgment should be reversed with costs and a new trial ordered.

The other Justices concurred.
/47/mich/171 · .json · Public domain