McNutt v. Pabst (1914) · DecisionDepot

McNutt v. Pabst

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal Jul 24, 1914 No. Civ. No. 1402.Published

Before: James

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the denial of a new trial, holding that the jury's verdict regarding the value of legal services and the impact of alleged negligence was supported by substantial evidence and that no prejudicial errors occurred during the trial.

Issues

Whether the jury's verdict on the value of legal services was supported by substantial evidence.
Whether the trial court erred in allowing cross-examination regarding the value of the land as a factor in determining attorney fees.
Whether the trial court properly instructed the jury to correct an irregular double verdict.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the record discloses that there was some substantial evidence both ways upon the question of the value of the land, and that being true, this court cannot substitute its judgment for that already declared by the jury.”

“It was altogether proper under the circumstances for the court to have the jury returned to the jury room and the verdict corrected.”

Synopsis

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County refusing a new trial. Franklin J. Cole, Judge presiding.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

JAMES, J.

In the year 1909 Cyrus F. McNutt, Joseph E. Hannon, and Benjamin Balmer, as attorneys at law, were employed by respondents to defend in two actions

[179]

then pending in the superior court in the county of Los Angeles, in each of which respondents appeared as parties defendant. Cyrus P. McNutt has since died, and his executrix has been substituted herein in his stead. The actions first referred to concerned the question as to the title to a certain lot of land, comprising about eight acres. Pursuant to their employment the attorneys for respondents prepared their defense to the first action, which necessitated a lengthy examination of the records in the county recorder’s office, and that action was finally tried, the trial occupying some three days. The city of Los Angeles was also a party defendant, and a disclaimer was first filed on its account, but later, upon application made in that behalf, the court allowed the said city to file an answer by which it set up title in itself to the land in question. This answer was filed on January 14, 1910, and in May following the plaintiff therein dismissed the action as to the city of Los Angeles. The findings and decree of the court as finally entered were in favor of the respondent Anton Pabst, it being determined that he held, as against the plaintiff there suing, good title to the land then in controversy. No contract had been made between respondents and their attorneys as to payment of any specific sum on account of fees for services rendered by the attorneys in either of the actions to quiet title, and after the first cause had been tried and determined a dispute arose between respondents and their counsel as to what amount it would be proper for the former to pay. The attorneys claimed that the sum of about one thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars had been earned by them, and respondents objected to paying more than five hundred dollars. Thereupon the attorneys refused to proceed any further as counsel for respondents in the second action, and brought this suit to recover the sum of one thousand seven hundred and twenty dollars as for services rendered in the first suit and two hundred and fifty dollars for services in the second action. The defendants took issue as to the value of the services and by cross-complaint made a claim for damages by reason of alleged negligent handling of the suit which was tried and in which respondent Anton Pabst was the successful party. The jury returned a verdict in favor of appellants for the sum of one hundred and seventy-five dollars, and judgment being entered thereon, appellants made

Related research

trial court to the jury, and it may be therefore assumed that those instructions correctly stated the law, and that if the effect of any of the evidence should have been limited by the instructions that such instructions so limiting it were declared to the jury. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 2061.) This observation is pertinent to be kept in mind in a consideration of most of the points made by appellants relating to the admission and rejection of testimony. It is contended again, that the court erred in refusing to allow appellant Balmer to testify as to whether he had done everything he thought necessary or proper to do in the ease which was tried. The evidence showed fully all of the facts as to what was done before and at the trial of the action, and the jury was called upon to determine as to whether counsel had performed their full duty in that behalf. One of appellants, Mr. Hannon, did testify quite fully as to having acted, according to the view he took of the case, diligently for the best interest of his clients. One of the grounds for damages alleged to have been caused to respondents was that appellants should hot have permitted the city to be dismissed from the action which was tried, but that a cross-complaint should have been filed and so caused to be determined in the one action all questions between respondents and the city relating to the title to the land in dispute. Mr. Hannon explained why this was not done and why in his judgment and the judgment of his associates it was deemed best not to take the affirmative as against the city, but evidently the jury, as it had the right to do, concluded that counsel was negligent in not so acting. Were that question, as a matter of fact, submitted here and were it a proper one for review, this court might well differ with the jury as to its conclusion. However, that matter is past questioning. It does seem from the record that the work devoted by counsel to the interest of respondents was laborious and involved a large amount of time and attention to detail. The amount awarded to them by the jury seems very small, considering the services rendered; still upon a careful examination of each of the points made for reversal, and assuming, as has been before suggested, that the jury was fully and correctly instructed as to the law, it cannot be said that any prejudicial errors have been shown which demand that a new trial should be ordered.

AI Brief

Synopsis

JAMES, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief