Wiley v. Silsbee

WILLIS, J.,

pro

tem.

Respondent, an attorney, brought this action against appellant to recover for professional services. He stated three causes of action in his complaint, one on

quantum meruit,

one on stated account, and one on open book account. Judgment was entered in his favor on the first cause on

quantum meruit,

on findings sustaining that cause, but adverse to the other two causes.

At the trial it was established by evidence that on February 24, 1930, appellant in writing retained respondent as her attorney for the purpose of effecting a property settlement with her husband and also obtaining a divorce. No compensation was at that time fixed or agreed upon. .On March 12, 1930, a new contract in writing was executed by appellant and respondent wherein appellant agreed to pay respondent, as her attorney, for services rendered in connection with divorce and property settlement with her husband, ten per cent of the amount finally accepted by her as a property settlement. Under Ms employment, respondent performed numerous services, and appellant does not herein question the justification of the court in finding under the evidence that the reasonable value of services rendered was the amount stated in the judgment.

Appellant does contend, however, that the contract between the parties as above stated being void,

quantum meruit

will not lie, and recovery of the reasonable value of such services may not be had.

[522]

That the contract here in question was void as against public policy is certain.

(Newman

v.

Prietas,

129 Cal. 283 [61 Pac. 907, 50 L. R. A. 548];

Parsons