Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1915-12-06
JUDGE MAXWELL SEEKS TO STOP
ACTIVITIES OF LAWYERS
WHO SOLICIT.
ENJolNS COURT TRIAL
IN ANOTHER STATE
Custom Followed by Legal Firms of
Beginning Damage Suits at Distant
Points Receives judicial Disapprova!
Railroads Held to Be Victims Of
Unfair Tactics by Certain Lawyers.
pecial to Times-Republican.

Special to Times Republican. 30 y
CreSton. Dec. "A ruling on an i'm
portant question. recently made by
Judge Maxwell. will prove of interest
to attorneys, htigants and prospective
litigants, thruout Iowa. The question
involved to right of persons to begin
actions for damages in states other
than Iowa in instances where such ac-
cidents occurred within this state, and
where the persons in interest reside.
According to Judge Maxwell such
must be filed in Iowa courts.
The ruling is blow at 4 class of
lawyers who send out solicitors to work
up damage cases against railroads and
file suits in adjacent states, thus fire.
quently forcing settlements in order to
save expense of summoning witnesses
from far distant points. Judge Max
well incidentally scored this practice.
The case in which the ruling was
made was brought by the Chicago, Bur
lington & Quincy against Warren w.
Mcmahon. the railroad company asking
for and securing an injunction restrain
ing defendant from prosecuting a dam
age suit begun in the courts of st.
Paul. Mcmahon was a former con-
ductor on the Burlington road, and is
a resident OF Creston.
MaxwelIs Decision.
In his ruling granting the injunction
to the railroad company. Judge Max
well said:
Attic as above stated, the courts
have been reluctant to interfere in any
given case except for the prevention
of some threatened evasion of the spe-
cific laws of the state Intended to reg
ulate the relation of it's citizens to each
other in some definite manner, the
question here is, should the court in
the light OF the evidence give consid-
GRAFTON to any other feature than that
Of the threatened evasion of some spe-
cific provision of our laws intended to
regulate the relations of our citizens
to each other. The defendant con-
tends not. He claims the right to pros
ecute his action in the courts of a for
eign state, far from the place where the
parties beth reside. and where the
cause of action arose and the witnesses
are located, regardless of the conse-
quences of his action, with reference to
the rights and interests Of the plain
tiff
Practice General.
AT the annual meeting of the Min
nesota State Bar Association in 1914
the ethics committee Of that associa-
! ton called attention to the growing
! practice OF some OF the lawyers OF the
state in soliciting personal injury cases
| outside the state. 1t is stated that an
| investigation proved that a number of
lawyers regularly employed solicitors
! to solicit such cases, one firm having
! in it's employ forty five railroad en-
ployes as solicitors. 1t is also stated
! that at that time there We're personal
injury actions pending in that state
against railroad companies by non res
idents who had a remedy at home in
which 1t is sought to recover S6,359,552.
! There were in all BAL of these cases,
| 1873 of them in Ramsey county and
forty-five of them in Hennepin county:
209 of these were in the hands of four
law firms.
Terms Practice ScandaIous.
1t Is SHOWN that as a general prac-
tice, some of these attorneys advance
money to the litigants for maintenance
| pending the litigation, and also pay the
expenses in the preparation and trial
/ of the cases; but in this case there is
! no evidence that there is any agree
ment between defendant and his attor-
neys other than a contingent fee con-
tract, which is legally unobjectoinal in
! this state. If court of equity may, in
the exercise of It's undoubted power.
| rightly do something towards discour-
! aging this scandalous practice and
wholesale violation of the rights of the
residents of its own state, it ought to
| do so. In addition to the case of the
| defendant which is the subject of this
section, there are four other like cases
pending in the courts of Ra,nse,-
county in which residents of the CITY of
Creston are plaintiffs, asking for the
| recovery of an aggregate amount of
$65.6a0 against the plaintiff in this ac-
| ton. 1t is shown that the plaintiff will
! require the attendance of at Ieast
twenty witnesses who reside mostly ar
Creston, in presenting its defense to de-
PENDANTS action, now pending in the
courts of Ramsey county, Minnesota.
where 1t can not have exemplary pro-
| cess to secure the attendance of such
Witnesses
For these and other reasons. due to
the trouble and expense IL trial were
held IN Mennesota, Judge Maxwell
made the temporary injunction perma-
nent. ruling in effect that the case
must be tried in Iowa