Abbott v. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis
Citation | 119 S.W. 964,138 Mo. App. 530 |
Parties | ABBOTT et al. v. UNITED RYS. CO. OF ST. LOUIS. |
Decision Date | 25 May 1909 |
Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Virgil Rule, Judge.
Action by A. L. Abbott and others against the United Railways Company of St. Louis. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
This case was commenced before a justice of the peace by the plaintiffs; a statement being filed setting out substantially these facts: Plaintiffs are attorneys and counselors at law, practicing in the city of St. Louis. Defendant is a corporation, operating a street railway. One Vincent Jankosky, while driving along the streets of the city of St. Louis, was struck and seriously injured by a car operated by defendant and died as the result of the injuries, leaving surviving him his widow, Caroline. On the 13th of August, 1907, Mrs. Jankosky entered into a written contract with plaintiffs, employing them to represent her in the prosecution and collection of her claim by suit or otherwise agreeing to pay them for their services 20 per cent. of the amount realized on any settlement before suit, or 30 per cent. of any amount recovered by judgment or on settlement after suit brought. On the 14th of August plaintiffs served notice in writing on defendant of their employment by Caroline Jankosky, advising defendant of the terms of the contract between her and plaintiffs. On the _____ day of September, 1907, the defendant and Caroline Jankosky, without the knowledge or consent of plaintiffs, compromised and adjusted the claim; the defendant paying Caroline Jankosky $600 in full settlement thereof. It is averred that Caroline is insolvent, and that she fails and refuses to pay plaintiffs for their services. Wherefore plaintiffs claim that defendant is indebted to them in the sum of $120, under and by virtue of sections 1 and 2 of an act approved February 25, 1901 (Acts 1901, p. 46 [Ann. St. 1906, §§ 4937-1, 4937-2]), relating to liens of attorneys for their fees in cases of this kind, and to prevent frauds between attorneys, clients, and defendants. From a judgment by the justice in favor of plaintiffs, defendant appealed to the circuit court, where, on a trial before the court, a jury having been waived, the case was submitted and tried on an agreed statement of facts. The agreed statement of facts, after setting out what the action is for, and the claim of plaintiffs to their lien under the act of February 25th, and the defense of defendant (there being no answer filed) to the effect that defendant claims "that the plaintiffs have not brought themselves within the provisions of the law, in that the plaintiffs failed to comply with the requirements of the law relating to the notice to be given to the defendant," sets out the foregoing agreement between plaintiffs and Caroline Jankosky, dated August 13, 1907. It is then stipulated as facts in the case, and for the purposes of this trial, that on the 14th of August, 1907, plaintiffs addressed to the "United Railways Company's claim department, St. Louis," a letter notifying defendant of their contract with Caroline Jankosky; the letter or notice closing with this sentence: "Mrs. Jankosky is not inclined to be unreasonable, and we will be pleased to take this matter up with your Mr. Brady or any one else you may desire if you choose." This letter was sent through the mail as registered matter. The receipt of it was acknowledged August 15, 1907, on the ordinary post-office receipt blank used for receipt of registered letters; the receipt being signed: "Chas. B. Hardin, by C. A." There was no statement as to who Hardin was, nor whose initials are attached to this. The agreed statement then proceeds: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Shoshoni Lumber Co. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland
... ... E. 375, 58 A. 642; Lumber Co. v. Const. Co. 133 S.E ... 133; Abbott v. United Rys. Co. 138 Mo.App. 530, 119 ... S.W. 964; Benson v ... ...
-
Richards v. Earls
... ... from New Madrid Circuit Court; Hon. Louis H. Schult , ... ... Affirmed ... ... ...
-
Stephens v. Metropolitan Street Ry. Co.
... ... 71; Boyd v ... Mercantile Co., 135 Mo.App. 115; Abbott et al. v ... Railroad, 138 Mo.App. 530. (b) James M. Stephens was the ... ...
-
Stephens v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co.
...103 S. W. 60; Boyle v. Railway, 134 Mo. App. 71, 114 S. W. 558; Boyd v. Mer. Co., 135 Mo. App. 115, 115 S. W. 1052; Abbott v. Railroad, 138 Mo. App. 530, 119 S. W. 964; Yonge v. Transit Co., 109 Mo. App. 235, 84 S. W. 184; Young v. Renshaw, 102 Mo. App. 173, 76 S. W. The interpretation of t......