TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Giachetta v. Marquam

Giachetta v. Marquam, 33 P. 537 (Or. 1893)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Oregon Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 27, 1893
Citations
33 P. 53724 Or. 1601893 Ore. LEXIS 97
Summary
Multnomah County: Erasmus D. Shattuck, Judge.

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.

Per Curiam.

This was an action by Fortunatio Giachetta against Ulysses Simpson Grant Marquam to recover money. The complaint charges that the defendant was employed by the plaintiff as an attorney-at-law to conduct a certain action for him, and that it was agreed that defendant should have as compensation for his services one third of the amount recovered, which was the sum of seven hundred and thirty-eight dollars and thirty-three cents; that defendant refused to pay plaintiff the balance due him, amounting to the sum of four hundred and seventeen dollars and twenty-itwo cents, after deducting the sum of seventy-five dollars paid on behalf of plaintiff to Dr. Boies for medical treatment. The defendant by his answer admits the agreement, and that the sum of seven hundred and thirty-eight dollars and thirty-three cents was received in said action, but sets up as a defense a settlement with one Albert B. Ferrara by paying him three hundred and twenty-three dollars and sixty cents in full of all money due plaintiff, claiming that said Ferrara was the authorized agent and attorney of plaintiff. In his reply plaintiff denies that Albert B. Ferrara was his authorized agent or attorney, also any knowledge of the alleged payments. A trial was regularly had, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the sum of four hundred and seventeen dollars and twenty cents. It thus appears that the main *161 question in the case 'was one of fact, which was for the jury to determine. When the case was called in this court the appellant had not prepared his brief, andr although he was allowed five days in which to file one, he failed so to do. . The entire instructions given by the court are in the record, and, taken as a whole, we think they correctly apply the law to the facts. We are unable from the record before us to discover any error substantially affecting the rights of appellant, and the judgment must be aeeirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 50 cases

View all citing references →
1897: 11898: 11899: 11900: 31901: 31902: 31904: 21905: 11906: 21907: 11908: 31909: 41910: 11911: 21913: 11914: 21918: 11920: 11921: 11923: 11924: 31926: 21927: 11929: 11953: 11958: 11960: 21970: 11984: 11985: 12021: 118972026peak 1909 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Eggleston77 P. 738 (Or. 1904)
  2. State v. Reyner91 P. 301 (Or. 1907)
  3. State v. Ramoz483 P.3d 615 (Or. 2021)
  4. State v. Sing229 P. 921 (Or. 1924)
  5. State v. McAvoy109 P. 763 (Or. 1910)
  6. State of Oregon v. Nodine259 P.2d 1056 (Or. 1953)

Most recent

  1. State v. Ramoz483 P.3d 615 (Or. 2021)
  2. State v. Peacock706 P.2d 982 (Or. Ct. App. 1985)
  3. State v. Holterman687 P.2d 1097 (Or. Ct. App. 1984)
  4. Paul v. McCudden471 P.2d 437 (Or. 1970)
  5. Wills v. PETROS357 P.2d 394 (Or. 1960)
  6. State v. Braley355 P.2d 467 (Or. 1960)

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
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list