Houghton v. Clarke

Hayne, C. Action by attorneys to recover the value of professional services. Judgment passed for the defendant, and the plaintiffs appeal.

It appears that the attorneys were retained in several suits in relation to certain land claimed by the client. During the pendency of the litigation the parties entered into a written agreement whereby the client agreed to convey, and the attorneys to accept, a portion of the land in full satisfaction of all services rendered and to be rendered by them in the litigation. Nothing was said in the agreement as to whether the conveyance was to be contingent upon success in the litigation. But such was evidently the understanding of the parties. And the attorneys subsequently wrote a letter to the client, in which they stated that, “ to avoid any question in the matter, we hereby agree that we will not demand [418]any conveyance of your land until your title shall be finally established.” It was., admitted that the agreement applied to all pending suits-

The court found that the conveyance was to be made on condition that the title- of the client should be finally established. The title of the client was not finally or otherwise established. It would seem that his success depended upon establishing that a decree in a certain foreclosure suit was valid. One of the cases came before the supreme court, which finally decided that the decree in the foreclosure suit was invalid; from which decision it seems to follow that the title of the client was not good. Nothing further appears to have been done with the other suits. But the attorneys had some idea that they could bring a bill in equity, “with a view of correcting, if possible, the defect in the decree of foreclosure,” and that they draughted a bill “ for that purpose, and for the purpose of enjoining the judgment.” ' After this the client effected a compromise of the litigation, and in pursuance thereof conveyed: to a third party the portion which he was to have conveyed to the attorneys.

Since the title of the client was not established, it is clear that the attorneys have no claim, upon the theory of performance of their agreement. And they make no such claim. Their position seems to be that they were prevented from performing the agreement by the act of the client in making the compromise. -We do not deem it necessary to inquire whether any good could have come out of an attempt through a bill in equity to impart validity to a decree which had been finally decided to be invalid, or whether any different showing could have been made in the other suits. For upon the record before us we think that it must be held that there was no prevention. In this regard the trial court finds that after the decision by the supreme court above referred to, the plaintiffs “refused to render to defendant any further services as attorneys unless he entered