Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

Rose Kimen, Appellant, v. Amy B. Ettelson and Leonard B. Ettelson, Executrix and Executor of Last Will and Testament of Samuel A. Ettelson, Deceased, and Leonard B. Ettelson, Appellees.

ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS, § 106 — failure to urge certain proposition on appeal, as not negligence. Where plaintiff employed defendants as attorneys to represent her in an action before the Supreme Court of the United States, in action involving agreement by a national bank to repurchase bonds sold to her, plaintiff could not recover on ground that defendants failed to urge distinction between national bank selling its own property and selling bonds as a broker, insofar as validity of repurchase agreement was concerned, because it was a conclusion of the pleader as to what the Supreme Court's decision might have been if the distinction had been urged, and later decisions showed that the repurchase agreement would still have been held beyond the powers of a national bank.

See Callaghan's Illinois Digest, same topic and section number.

Opinion by PRESIDING JUSTICE MATCHETT.

"Not to be published in full."

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

BRADY v. FIDELITY CASULATY CO
(Jan 22, 1940)