Clarke v. Angelus Memorial Assn.
Before: McCOMB
McCOMB, J.,
pro tem.
This is an appeal from the portion of a judgment in favor of plaintiff after trial before the court without a jury, awarding only the sum of $1,067.97 against the defendants Aimee Semple McPherson Hutton and David L. Hutton.
The facts are these:
Plaintiff’s assignor, an attorney at law, rendered legal services to the defendant corporation, Angelus Memorial Association, of which defendant Aimee Semple McPherson owned 440/1000ths of the issued capital stock. The court found defendant corporation indebted to plaintiff in the sum of (a) $5,490.84 for services rendered prior to July 2, 1929, upon an account stated, but that defendant Aimee Semple McPherson was liable only for $765.97 of said sum (b) $500 as the reasonable value of services rendered between July 2, 1929, and February 21, 1930, and (e) $250 as the reasonable value of services rendered between February 21, 1930, and August 1, 1931. Defendants have paid plaintiff the amount awarded by the trial court.
These questions are presented for our determination:
First: Does the -acceptance of an amount adjudged due preclude plaintiff from maintaining an appeal for the purpose of establishing his claim to a greater sum?
Second: When a corporation incurs an indebtedness does a stockholder become liable for payment thereof in the proportion which the number of shares of stock which he owns bears to the whole of the subscribed capital stock of the corporation?
[752]
Third: Is there sufficient evidence to sustain the findings of fact of the trial court as to the reasonable value of the legal services rendered to defendant corporation as set forth under subdivisions (b) and
(c),
supra?
The first question must be answered in the negative. The law is settled .that, where the only question on appeal is whether the recovery should be greater than that allowed by the trial court, the acceptance of the amount adjudged due is not inconsistent with the claim that the judgment is not large enough and the appeal may be maintained.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)