McNeal v. Mercer

STEPHENS, J.,

pro

tem.

This is an action for legal services rendered by John G. Mott and Albert M. Cross, plaintiff’s assignors, to the defendant, Edward H. Mercer. The action was tried before a jury and a judgment rendered against the defendant for the sum of five hundred dollars and costs. The defendant appeals.

The defendant is a druggist in Oxnard, California, and in the spring of 1922 became involved with the federal authorities on account of some alleged irregularities in the sale of whisky and was required to appear before the federal prohibition agent in Los Angeles to show cause why his permit to sell liquor on prescription should not be revoked. He employed Drapeau, Orr

&

Gardner, Esquires, a firm of attorneys in Ventura, California, to help him. The defendant had been buying goods from Brunswig Drug Company, wholesalers, in Los Angeles, and upon one occasion the defendant and his attorney visited the Brunswig Drug Company, and Water M. Brunswig, of the wholesale firm, made an appointment for the defendant to meet Mr. Mott, attorney for the drug company, whom he thought could be of great assistance in the case. Mr. Mott was consulted and thereafter co-operated with defendant’s Ventura attorneys in the case. Nothing was said regarding a retainer or compensation at the time and no bill was presented to the defendant by Mott & Cross until December, 1923. The entire matter had been closed in August, 1922, approximately one and one-half' years before a bill was rendered. A few weeks before the suit was brought the defendant ceased to buy goods from the Brunswig Drug Company and they brought an action against him for breach of contract in so doing.

There were two issues actually contested on the trial, viz., the' value of the services actually rendered by Mott & Cross, and the question as to whether or not the' services were rendered at the instance and request of the defendant, or whether the Brunswig Drug Company had volunteered to lend to' the defendant the services of their attorneys, Mott & Cross, to assist defendant, their customer, in .this difficulty.

In the above we have adopted appellant’s statement of fact as our own, without change; The only point upon

[585]