Asher v. Martin

California Court of Appeal Aug 2, 1929 No. Docket No. 6958.Published

Before: Nourse

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that when valuable services are performed at a party's request, the law implies a promise to pay their reasonable value, and this presumption is not defeated by the fact that the service provider had a personal interest in the outcome.

Issues

Whether the evidence supported the trial court's finding of an implied contract to pay for services rendered.
Whether a service provider's personal interest in a matter renders their services gratuitous as a matter of law.
Whether the trial court committed reversible error in the admission or exclusion of evidence.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“When one performs valuable services for another, at the latter’s request, the law implies as matter of fact a promise by the latter to pay the reasonable value of the services.”

“It cannot be said as matter of law that this presumption of a promise to pay is dispelled by proof of the fact that the one who performed the services was personally interested in the outcome of the services”

NOURSE, J.

These two actions for services rendered were consolidated for trial before the court without a jury. Plaintiff had a single judgment against the defendant Martin in the sum of $1376.08, but was denied judgment against the Growers Association. The defendant Martin has appealed from the judgment upon typewritten transcripts.

The controversy arises out of the alleged employment of the plaintiff by the defendant Martin to assist him and also the Growers Association, of which he was an interested member, in a campaign in opposition to an announced ruling of the railroad carriers in California relating to the use of refrigerator cars in the transportation of grapes, commonly referred to as the “Grape Car Plan of 1926.” The plaintiff is a traffic man engaged in the business of advising shippers with respect to their relations with transportation companies, representing them before the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Railroad Commission and other bodies having jurisdiction over transportation matters, and in the collection of claims and the routing of transportation cars. The defendant Martin is a large grower and shipper of fresh fruits in the territory adjacent to Fresno, who had frequently employed plaintiff on other traffic matters prior to the controversy over the grape car plan.

When this plan was promulgated by the carriers the defendant Martin became very much disturbed and approached the plaintiff, asking him to take charge of a campaign of opposition to the plan in his behalf. Numerous conferences were held between the parties and, at the instance of this defendant, the plaintiff engaged an attorney at law to prepare a complaint to be filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission and thereafter, also at defendant’s request, plaintiff, with an assistant, circularized the growers of the locality for signatures in opposition to the plan. The plaintiff continued to advise and consult with

[219]

this defendant during all the period from the date of the first negotiations in August, 1926, to the hearing before the commission in March, 1927; he assisted in preparing the case for hearing and,, at the request of this defendant, aided in the incorporation of the Growers Association for the purpose of supporting the defendant Martin in his campaign.

Asher v. Martin

AI Brief

NOURSE, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief