Bouton v. Stuart

STURTEVANT, J.

The defendant in the trial court has appealed from an adverse judgment as to his title to a fractional interest in certain lands in Monterey County. The case is closely allied in its facts to the cases entitled

Bonifacio

v.

Stuart, post,

p. 487, [199 Pac. 69], and

Espinosa

v.

Stuart, ante,

p. 477, [199 Pac. 66], therefore we state only those facts necessary to a determination of this ease.

[1]

In her amended complaint the plaintiff sets forth allegations showing that certain transfers were obtained by the defendant Stuart while acting as her attorney in certain litigation; that some of the property so transferred had been by the defendant Stuart transferred to the other defendants Prank Shurtz and David Wallace, and that the defendant Stuart had collected under said transfers certain rentals amounting to $550 claimed by the plaintiff to be her property. The defendants interposed a demurrer alleging that the plaintiff had improperly united and had not separately stated two causes of action, a cause of action to set aside a deed and a' cause of action to recover $500

■{sic

$500) moneys had and received. The demurrer also alleged that there was a misjoinder of parties defendant because the action to set aside the deed was addressed to all of the defendants and the cause of action for money had and received was addressed to the defendant Stuart only. The trial court overruled the demurrer. There was no error in the ruling.

[2]

The plaintiff showed by the evidence that the relation of attorney and client arose through a written contract executed September 12, 1916; that said writing called for a fee measured at two-tenths of the plaintiff’s share, and that on March 30, 1917, the defendant took from the plaintiff transfers measured at three-tenths. The plaintiff also introduced testimony tending to prove each of her allegations; thereupon the defendant introduced some tes

[486]