Humphreys v. Jacoby
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1914, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
1 later published case cites this decision.
- Fryberger v. Anderson (Minn. 1914)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
This is an action to recover for professional services rendered by the plaintiff and his former partner, one Sheldon, in the capacity of attorneys-at-law, Sheldon having assigned to the plaintiff his interest in the alleged cause of action. The services rendered consisted of professional advice given to the defendants in regard to a proposed incorporation, and in the drawing and filing of articles of incorporation. The only question upon this appeal is whether the evidence justified a finding in favor of the defendants. The case shows that it was agreed that Sheldon was to be a member of the corporation, and one of its directors, and he did become such. -It -was also agreed that his services should be rendered in perfecting the incorporation. We are of the opinion that this fact justified the conclusion on the part of the court that it was not contemplated by the parties that a charge should be made for these services against the individuals engaged in the enterprise, Sheldon having the same interest as the defendants in the matter under consideration, and in the results to be accomplished. While Humphreys participated in the advice given and the services rendered, he does not claim to have acted independently of his partnership relation with Sheldon. It might fairly be considered, from the whole ease, that his services as a partner of Sheldon were not intended to be rendered upon any different conditions than were those of Sheldon.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.