action to recover for financial loss suffered when attorneys negligently allowed default foreclosure judg- ment to be taken and property sold; rejected because the defendants’ negligence “was not the proximate cause of [the] plaintiff’s loss”
How later courts described this case
- action to recover for financial loss suffered when attorneys negligently allowed default foreclosure judg- ment to be taken and property sold; rejected because the defendants’ negligence “was not the proximate cause of [the] plaintiff’s loss”
- “Unless [the client] has a good cause of action against [her adversary], whom she accuses of having cheated and defrauded her, she has no cause of action against [the defen- dant lawyers]. Unless she had a good cause of action against [her adversary] for fraud, she lost nothing by the conduct of [the defendant lawyers], even though they were guilty of gross negligence.”
- “Unless plaintiff had a good cause of action against Lohmire, whom she accuses of having cheated and defrauded her, she has no cause of action against [her attorneys]. Unless she had a good cause of action against Lohmire for fraud, she lost nothing by the conduct of [the] defendants, even though they were guilty of gross negligence * * *.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
The sufficiency of the complaint can be determined only from its own recitals. Speaking demurrers are unknown to our practice; unless the complaint in this suit can be aided by matters foreign to it it must be held sufficient.
For these reasons I cannot subscribe to any conclusion that the complaint is insufficient to state a cause of action. Nevertheless I believe that the judgment on the pleadings entered by the Circuit Court was proper. I therefore concur in the result reached by the majority.