Word: plaintiffs
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1920-1929
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...become a syndicate, splitting up, and classifying every human ailment into as many divisions as the famous butchering industry of the "Principles of Economics." The law firms of the forties where two partners would "stump" the circuit, taking up each case as it came to them, one for the plaintiff and the other for the defendant, have given way to elaborately organized systems, drawing such fine distinctions that the vague general head of Law is lost in the vast number of sub-headings...
...Boscawen, N. H., and Harold Fisch Birnbaum 3L., of Denver Colorado, represented the winning club and acted as counsel for the defendants, in the mock trial which constituted the contest. R. A. Bogle 3L. and J. M. Nicely 3L., representing the Parsons Club, were consul for the plaintiff. Each of the winners received a trophy, as well as a cash prize of approximately...
...Ames Competition is one of unusual interest at the present time, because it is parallel to numerous cases which have recently come up in the courts of Texas. The defendant, N. P. Banks et al., are members of a "Massachusetts" trust, the Lone Star Oil Company. The plaintiff, one Emil Borah sued them personally and individually for debts contracted by the company as a whole. The question of the case lay in whether or not the members of such a trust can be held personally responsible for the company's debts...
...case is one of contract law, in which the plaintiff, one Emil Borah, is suing the defendants. Nathaniel P. Banks et al, who are members of the "Lone Star Oil Company," a business, or "Massachusetts" trust. This form of company includes some of the features of a partnership, with certain modifications commonly pertaining to a trust. Borah, to whom the company owes $3000, is trying to collect from the individual members of the company on the basis of a contract made with the whole company...
...Parsons Club, as counsel for the plaintiff, will base its case upon the claims that the defendants are partners, and therefore liable; that the contract made with the plaintiff was within the scope of the agents of the company who made it; that no mention of limited liability was made in this contract; that no previous decision can limit the judgment in this case; and that, even if the court is of the opinion that no contract was made, the plaintiff can nevertheless recover. The counsel for the defendants claim that Banks et al. are not personally liable, because...