The Golden Star

Good Law
9 F. Supp. 172·1934 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1183
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaDecember 21, 1934No. 21535California425 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Sure, J.

Libelant filed suit “in rem and in person-am,” based on a charge of negligence resulting in alleged personal injuries, for which damages weré sought in the sum of $50,000. While the amount sued for is large, we know that litigants in personal injury cases frequently make claim for large damages and thereafter settle for smaller amounts. The suit is for a tort in which the damage is indeterminate, and there is always uncertainty as to the facts of the ease and the verdict or judgment. Purcell v. Lincoln, 20 Fed. Cas. page 64 , No. 11,471; Swanson v. Chicago, St. P. & K. C. Ry. Co. (C. C.) 35 F. 638 .

Before trial, libelant settled his case with respondents without the knowledge of his proctor. Upon representation to the court that “respondents entered into a covinous, fraudulent, and collusive settlement with libelant for the sole purpose of cheating and defrauding the proctor for libelant out of his fees, costs, and disbursements and moneys advanced to libelant,” an order was made permitting the proctor to prosecute the suit in the name of the libelant for recovery.

Upon hearing, the evidence failed to sustain the representations of the proctor. The settlement was made wholly…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.