TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Strattner v. Wilmington City Electric Co.

Sarah A. Strattner v. The Wilmington City Electric Company

Strattner v. Wilmington City Elec. Co., 53 A. 436 (Del. Super. Ct. 1901)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Superior Court of Delaware · State Trial Courts
Decided
January 13, 1901
Docket
No. Action on the Case No. 168
Citations
53 A. 43619 Del. 4533 Penne. 4531901 Del. LEXIS 47
Syllabus
Personal Injuries—Pleading—Plea—Demurrer— Covmsel—Agreement by Authority—Officer of Court. The defendant in his plea averred that plaintiff’s counsel agreed in writing with defendant’s counsel to accept a certain sum in settlement of his claim, and that said sum was tendered and declined. The plaintiff filed a general demurrer to said plea alleging the insufficiency thereof, because no authority had been given counsel by the plaintiff to make the alleged settlement. Held that the general demurrer admitted all the facts, among which was that the person who made the agreement on the part of the plaintiff was plaintiff’s counsel, and as such he had lawful authority to enter into the agreement; and further, that being an officer of the court, it is presumed he had lawful authority to enter into the agreement, and there was nothing before the Court to the contrary.
Summary
for damages for the loss of services of a minor son, Ereberick Strattner, through injuries to the latter while in the employ of the defendant company. Demurrer to plea. On December 10th the defendant filed the following plea, to wit: “And the said defendant, by Walter H. Hayes, its attorney, for a further plea in this behalf, by leave of the Court first had and obtained, says that the said plaintiff ought not to further maintain her said action thereof against it, the said defendant, because it says; that on the twelfth day of July, A. D. 1901, Harry Emmons, Esq., counsel of record for said plaintiff' in this cause, to wit, at Hew Castle County, agreed in writing with Walter H. Hayes, Esq., counsel of record for said defendant in said cause, to accept and receive the sum of one thousand fourteen dollars and forty-seven cents from said plaintiff in full settlement of said cause; that thereupon, to wit, on the nineteenth day of July, A. D. 1901, the said defendant, by its said attorney, to wit, at the county aforesaid, tendered to the said Harry Emmons, counsel as aforesaid, the said sum of one thousand fourteen dollars and forty-seven cents, in full payment and satisfaction of said claim, and that the said Harry Emmons, counsel as aforesaid, then and there declined to accept the same, to wit, at Hew Castle County aforesaid; and the said defendant further says that it is now ready and willing to pay unto the said plaintiff the said sum of one thousand fourteen dollars and forty-seven cents, in settlement as aforesaid of said cause, and this it is ready to verify,” etc. To the above plea the plaintiff, on December 19, 1901, filed a general demurrer, alleging insufficiency thereof, because no authority had been given plaintiff’s counsel by said plaintiff to make the settlement as alleged in the plea. Doughten vs. West End Street R. R. Co., 34 N. E., 261 (159 Mass., 221); Granger vs. Batchelder, 54 Vt., 243.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The Court unanimously held that the general demurrer to the plea admitted all the facts, among which was that the person who made the agreement on the part of the plaintiff was plaintiff’s counsel, and as such he had lawful authority to enter into the agreement; and further, that being an officer of the court, it is presumed that he had.lawful authority for entering into the agreement, and there was nothing before the Court to the contrary.

*455 Demurrer overruled, and upon the election of the plantifica attorney judgment of respondeat ouster entered.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1913: 11956: 11958: 11977: 21978: 11985: 11992: 119132026peak 1977 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Beirne v. Fitch Sanitarium, Inc.167 F. Supp. 652 (S.D.N.Y. 1958)
  2. Read v. Baker438 F. Supp. 732 (D. Del. 1977)
  3. Read v. Baker438 F. Supp. 737 (D. Del. 1977)
  4. Aiken v. National Fire Safety Counsellors127 A.2d 473 (Del. Ch. 1956)
  5. Corbesco, Inc. v. Local No. 542, International Union of Operating Engineers620 F. Supp. 1239 (D. Del. 1985)
  6. Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Summa Corp.394 A.2d 241 (Del. Ch. 1978)

Most recent

  1. Shields v. Keystone Cogeneration Systems, Inc.620 A.2d 1331 (Del. Super. Ct. 1992)
  2. Corbesco, Inc. v. Local No. 542, International Union of Operating Engineers620 F. Supp. 1239 (D. Del. 1985)
  3. Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Summa Corp.394 A.2d 241 (Del. Ch. 1978)
  4. Read v. Baker438 F. Supp. 737 (D. Del. 1977)
  5. Read v. Baker438 F. Supp. 732 (D. Del. 1977)
  6. Beirne v. Fitch Sanitarium, Inc.167 F. Supp. 652 (S.D.N.Y. 1958)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list