Miller v. Ballerino

VAN DYKE, J.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, in the sum of one thousand dollars, and from' an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial. The action is brought by the plaintiff, as assignee of Hatch, Miller

&

Brown, to recover for services rendered by them in the suit

[568]

of Ballerino

v.

Ballerino, in the superior court of Los Angeles County.

The appellant contends that the court erred in overruling the defendant’s demurrer to the plaintiff’s complaint. The complaint alleges that between the twenty-fifth day of March, 1896, and the first day of June, 1897, Hatch, Miller & Brown rendered services to the defendant, upon her retainer of them, in the prosecution of a suit for said defendant against one Bartolo Ballerino, and in counseling and advising said defendant relative to said suit and her interests therein involved; that said services are reasonably worth the sum of $2,500; that the same has not been paid; and that said claim had been properly assigned to the plaintiff by Hatch, Miller & Brown. In support of the contention of the appellant that the complaint was insufficient, it is said that it nowhere appears that the parties who rendered the services were attorneys and had a license to practice as such. In reply respondent contends that the court will take notice of who are the attorneys at law practicing before it. However this may be, there is no case cited from this state where it is held to be necessary to aver that in a suit for services rendered by an attorney it must be alleged that he is an attorney admitted to practice. Besides, thére is nothing in law prohibiting persons other than attorneys from recovering the reasonable value of their services when performed at the request of another. In the finding of the court it is stated that the law firm of Hatch, Miller

&

Brown were employed to assist in the prosecution of the suit in question, and that said law firm of Hatch, Miller

&