Prince v. Kennedy

GRAY, P. J.

In this action it is alleged in the complaint: “That Taylor & Porgy is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a copartnership, composed of W. S. Taylor and E. W. Porgy, who are, and at the times herein mentioned were, engaged in the practice of law as attorneys and counselors at law, in the city of Los Angeles, California. That within two years last past, as such attorneys and counselors at law, and at the special instance and request of the defendant, H. Kennedy, said Taylor & Porgy, rendered to and for said defendant services for which said defendant agreed to pay the reasonable value thereof; that no time was agreed upon for the payment thereof, but said services have been fully rendered and performed and $750 is the reasonable value thereof. That no part of said sum has been paid; and the whole thereof, to wit, the sum of $750, is now due, owing and unpaid.” An assignment of the said claim to the plaintiff is also duly alleged in the complaint.

The answer, in effect admits the performance of services but denies that they were performed within two years last past, and also denies that they were of any value. The answer then proceeds as follows: “And for a further and separate defense this defendant alleges: That within six months last past defendant employed W. S. Taylor, one of the members of the firm of Taylor & Porgy, as attorney at law, to

[406]

collect a certain claim of $525 due defendant as commission upon a sale of real estate from one Andrea Daneri; that said Taylor and said Taylor & Forgy failed and neglected to collect said claim or any part thereof; that they wholly failed and neglected to institute proceedings to collect said claim, and defendant says that he has no information upon which to found a belief, and basing his denial upon that ground he denies that said Taylor or said Taylor & Forgy performed any services in that behalf.”

The court found “that all the allegations of the complaint are true,” except the allegation that the services were of the reasonable value of $750 and found the reasonable value thereof to be “$500 and no more”; and “that no part of said reasonable value of such services has been paid. ’ ’ From the judgment entered m plaintiff’s favor on these findings the defendant appeals.

1. It is objected, first, that the complaint is insufficient to support the judgment, and fails to state a cause of action because it is not alleged therein that Taylor & Forgy were attorneys at law “authorized by the laws of this state to practice law.”