# Ricketts v. Pennsylvania R. Co.

> Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · January 10, 1946 · 153 F.2d 757

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9637320

## Case

- **Full name:** Ricketts v. Pennsylvania R. Co.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- **Decided:** January 10, 1946
- **Citations:** 153 F.2d 757; 164 A.L.R. 387; 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 2915
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Swan
- **Judges:** L. Hand, Swan, and Frank, Circuit Judges
- **Cited by:** 80 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9637320

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that principal was bound by acts of agent despite agent’s deception of the principal

## Opinion text

SWAN,' Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
As I understand Judge HAND’S opinion he differentiates between the case where a lawyer is engaged by an injured plaintiff to settle any and all claims arising out of the accident and the case where the lawyer is engaged to settle only a claim for loss of wages due to the accident; in the former case a release signed by the plaintiff will bind him even though the lawyer represented to him that it was only a receipt for wages, in the latter it will not. So far I agree with my brother. But I cannot agree to affirmance of the judgment on the ground that the jury found that the plaintiff engaged Mr. Reich under a limited retainer. I think that affirmance on this ground rests upon an issue not argued by the parties, not submitted to the jury and not supported by the evidence. It appears from the plaintiff’s own testimony, as well as from Mr. Reich’s, that after the latter was retained he caused the plaintiff to be examined by a doctor to ascertain the extent of his injuries. This seems wholly inconsistent with the present theory that Mr. Reich was to present to the defendant only a claim for wages and tips. When an injured employee engages his own attorney, and the latter has a doctor investigate the extent of the injuries, and then makes a complete settlement and gets his client to sign a release in full, that ought to end the matter, unless the employer practiced fraud on the attorney. In my opinion the judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial in which the issue of what claims the attorney was authorized to settle shall be clearly submitted to the jury.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9637320. Public record. Not legal advice.