Abbott v. Hauschild
| Decision Date | 30 September 1952 |
| Citation | 248 P.2d 41,113 Cal.App.2d 383 |
| Parties | ABBOTT v. HAUSCHILD. ABBOTT v. HIGGINS et al. Civ. 18812, 18813. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Marshall Abbott, Alfred D. Freis, Los Angeles, for appellant.
George D. Higgins, Los Angeles, for respondents.
The appeals in the two above entitled causes have been presented on a single set of briefs, the causes having been tried together in the superior court. In case No. 18812 (Superior Court No. 578115) plaintiff sought to quiet title to an asserted one-half interest in a parcel of real property and by a second cause of action sought to enforce an 'attorney's lien' upon one-half the proceeds of the sale of the property if the property had been sold. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment that he take nothing by this action.
In case No. 18813 (Superior Court No. 581830) plaintiff sought damages for breach of contract and by his third cause of action sought to recover against defendant George D. Higgins for inducing such breach. In this case a demurrer to the third cause of action was sustained without leave to amend, and after trial, judgment was entered that plaintiff recover the sum of $150 as reasonable attorney's fees for services actually rendered by him. Plaintiff appeals from that portion of the judgment providing that he take nothing by his first cause of action, as well as from that portion of the judgment to the effect that he recover only the sum of $150 as attorney's fees.
In June, 1947, defendant Hauschild consulted the plaintiff, an attorney, with reference to property standing in the joint names of Hauschild and his wife, which property will be referred to as the Ninth Avenue property. Plaintiff dictated, and there was reduced to typewriting and signed by Hauschild, a document entitled 'Statement of Facts,' containing recitals as to the manner in which Hauschild acquired his Ninth Avenue property and other real estate. The statement then continued with recitals to the effect that Hauschild married his wife Rosalie in January, 1929; that he was a janitor and maintenance man of no business experience and trusted his wife; that she persuaded him that under California law his property should be put in joint tenancy with her, and relying upon her, he permitted this to be done; that through his wife he met a Mr. Knouse, who made him a loan of $1800 which he repaid; that relying upon his wife and Mr. Knouse he signed a series of mortgages and promissory notes; that in June, 1947, he received a demand from the executors of the estate of Knouse for payment of a mortgage upon the Ninth Avenue property. The balance of the 'Statement of Facts' is quoted in full as follows:
In superior court action No. 578115 () the trial court found that the agreement was prepared by the plaintiff, and attorney-at-law, who had some prior relations with his client, the defendant, Hauschild. Plaintiff was employed to get this property, that is the 9th Avenue property, 'back from my wife.' The court further found that the language in the last paragraph of the 'Statement of Facts,' that and 'I will pay you a reasonable fee for getting my property back from my wife,' was 'ambiguous, uncertain and conflicting and requires construction.' The court then found that 'the defendant Hauschild intended to and did contract to pay a reasonable fee for getting 'my property back from my wife''; that the purported assignment was no more than an assignment as security for such reasonable fee; that to accomplish the purpose of 'getting my property back from my wife' plaintiff filed an action to quiet title against the mortgagees of the property and the wife, but that the complaint was never served on the wife, 'whose claim against the property was the reason for the litigation.' The demurrer of the mortgagee, the Estate of Knouse, was sustained without leave to amend. The court found that plaintiff neglected his duties as an attorney in respect to the litigation and failed to render any service of value to plaintiff under the agreement except as above stated; that the purported assignment of a one-half interest was not valid and that plaintiff was 'not entitled to have his title quieted as against the one-half interest in said property.' In action No. 581830 (Civ. No. 18813) the court found that plaintiff entered into negotiations with the attorney for the Knouse estate and agreed that $3450 was a reasonable settlement, but that 'there...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Niederer v. Ferreira
...Such interpretation is a question of law (Ames v. Irvine Co. (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 832, 839-840, 55 Cal.Rptr. 180; Abbott v. Hauschild (1952) 113 Cal.App.2d 383, 248 P.2d 41), which may be resolved on summary judgment. Only where a contract is ambiguous, i.e., "when, on its face, it is capa......
-
Bradley v. Superior Court In and For City and County of San Francisco
...parties. (Quader-Kino A. G. v. Nebenzal (1950), 35 Cal.2d 287, 294(1), 217 P.2d 650, and cases cited therein; Abbott v. Hauschild (1952), 113 Cal.App.2d 383, 387(2), 248 P.2d 41.) Petitioner's suggestion, that because in the present case the evidence was presented by affidavit rather than o......
-
Mahoney v. Sharff
...as security that the interest in the property would become theirs upon the performance of their obligation. In Abbott v. Hauschild, 1952, 113 Cal.App.2d 383, 248 P.2d 41, the contract provided that the attorney was to bring an action to obtain for the client certain real property standing i......