28 Ala. 601 (Ala. 1856), King v. Pope

Citation28 Ala. 601
Opinion JudgeRICE, C.J.
Party NameKING v. POPE.
AttorneyALEX. WHITE, for the appellant. MORGAN & MARTIN, contra.
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

Page 601

28 Ala. 601 (Ala. 1856)

KING

v.

POPE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January Term, 1856

[ACTION BY ATTORNEY AT LAW FOR SERVICES RENDERED.]

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Shelby.

Tried before the Hon. ANDREW B. MOORE.

ALEX. WHITE, for the appellant.

MORGAN & MARTIN, contra.

RICE, C.J.

The appellee brought this suit to recover for services rendered by him, as an attorney at law for appellant, in the circuit court of Shelby county, and in the supreme court, in a case of appellant and others against Jack Shackelford. There was evidence tending to show, that the case in which the services were rendered by the appellee as an attorney, was a proceeding for appellant, for himself as executor and creditor of the insolvent estate of one Mason, against Shackelford, one of the executors of said Mason; that it was commenced in the orphans' court of Shelby county; that a decree had been rendered in it in said orphans' court; that appellant had employed another lawyer to attend to the case in the orphans' court, and this lawyer had spoken to appellee to attend to the case for appellant in the supreme court, upon its going up the first time to that court, and had informed appellant of this soon afterwards; that services were rendered (the value of which was proved) by appellee, in the supreme court, when the case went up the first time; that the case was afterwards transferred from the orphans' court to the circuit court, in consequence of the incompetency of the judge of the orphans' court; that the other lawyer mentioned above, as having been employed by the appellant, was present at the trial of the case in the circuit court, attending to it, but appellee took the lead in conducting the case on the trial; that appellant was also present at that trial, and did not make any objection to appellee attending to the case, and that he and appellee conferred about the case on that trial; that the decree of the circuit court was in favor of appellant and others, and against Shackelford; that an appeal from this decree was taken to the supreme court, and appellee alone argued the case on this appeal on the side of appellant as executor, &c. "There was no express contract proven of defendant having employed" appellee to attend to the case for him. The appellee offered in evidence the certificate of the reversal of the case, when it went up from the orphans' court to the supreme court; but the appellant objected to its introduction, "as irrelevant and res inter alios." The court overruled this objection, and the appellant excepted.

In this court, the appellant must be confined to the two specific grounds of objection stated by him in the court below, and as having waived all other grounds of objection to the certificate of reversal.--Creagh v. Savage, 9 Ala. Rep. 959. If he had stated, as one of his grounds of objection, that the reversal could not be proved in this suit by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT