Rader v. Snyder
Cases that cite this one
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- Fenney v. Wade (Richmond County Circuit Court 1993)
- Northwestern National Insurance v. Averill (Or. 1935)
- Szteinbaum v. Kaes Inversiones Y Valores (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)
- Stevens v. Gertz (District Court, W.D. Michigan 1952)
- Schifrin v. Chenille Mfg. Co. (2d Cir. 1941)
- Henry L. Sawyer Co. v. Boyajian (Mass. 1936)
- National Publicity Society v. Raye (Me. 1916)
- Rouiller v. A. & B. Schuster Co. (United States District Court for the District of Arizona 1914)
- Johnson v. Gibbons (Va. 1876)
- Johnson v. Gibbons (Va. 1876)
- Johnson v. Gibbons (Va. 1876)
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
An action of debt was pending in the circuit court of Greenbrier county in the name of the plaintiff in esrror to recover from the defendants the sum of 641 dollars. Process had been regularly served, declaration filed, and office judgment entered at rules and the cause placed on the court docket.
The defendants, by their counsel, appeared and moved the court to quash the declaration and dismiss the suit, upon the ground that although the declaration was signed “ plaintiff,” it was in fact prepared and signed, and the suit brought by Samuel Price, an attorney not. authorized to practice law or bring suit under the law of West Virginia.
When the motion was made James H. McGinniss, who had just qualified as an attorney in the court and who had had no previous connection with the case, appeared as counsel for the plaintiff. Joel McPherson, the clerk of the court, was then sworn, who proved that the memorandum at rules for the said suit was in the handwriting of Mr. Price, and that the declaration, or at least the written part thereof, as well as the signature thereto of the “plaintiff,” were in the
It seems to me, upon the facts of this case, the order to dismiss was not justified, and that the same will have to be reversed with costs to the defendants in error, the cause reinstated upon the docket, and remanded for further proceedings to be had therein.
JUDGMENT REVERSED.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.