Allcorn v. Butler
| Decision Date | 01 January 1852 |
| Citation | 9 Tex. 56 |
| Parties | ALLCORN AND ANOTHER v. BUTLER, ADM'X. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
In a suit for specific performance it is proper to make a previous vendor in whom the legal title yet remains a party; and in such a case a letter from the previous vendor to the plaintiff, informing him when he expected to be able to convey, is admissible in evidence as conducing to prove that he had contracted to convey but had not conveyed to the plaintiff's immediate vendor (the other defendant) the land in question.
Where one attorney at law procures another to represent him in a case of which the client has notice and makes no objection, the client cannot afterwards, when sued by the attorney whom he employed for his fee, object to the right of the latter to make the substitution.
A contract between attorney and client for a specific fee is not affected by a compromise of the suit. (Note 10.)
Error from Washington. This suit was brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiffs in error, Allcorn and Chrisman, for the specific performance of a contract to convey land evidenced by a bond for title made by Allcorn in favor of Butler, in September, 1839. Allcorn had purchased the land of Chrisman, who still retained the legal title.
The plaintiff offered in evidence a letter from Chrisman to Butler, dated in March, 1843, informing Butler when he expected to be able to make title, to which the defendant objected, but the court overruled the objection. The defendant Allcorn contested the plaintiff's right to a conveyance, on the ground that the consideration of the contract had failed. It appeared that the bond to make title was given in consideration of the professional services of Butler as an attorney at law in a suit in which Allcorn was defendant. Butler appeared for Allcorn in the suit, and conducted the defence during several years previous to 1847. In the spring of that year he told the brother of the defendant (who came to consult with him about the suit at the defendant's request) to tell the latter to employ another attorney, that he could not attend to the case any longer. Afterwards, intending to go abroad, he engaged three other attorneys to represent him in this and other cases. They did represent him in this case with the knowledge of the defendant, who made no objection. He employed no other attorney, nor did those who represented Butler charge or receive any fee for their services. The parties subsequently settled their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Snow v. Beard
...disavowed such conclusion, and so informed the defendants, pursuant to which notice they appeared at and conducted that trial. In Allcorn v. Butler, 9 Tex. 56, it was ruled when one attorney at law procures another to represent him in a case of which the client has notice and makes no objec......
-
Hall v. Gunter & Gunter
... ... This principle has been ... applied to the relation of attorney and client. Webb v ... Trescony, 76 Cal. 621, 18 P. 796; Alcorn v ... Butler, 9 Tex. 56; Majors v. Hickman, 2 Bibb ... (Ky.) 217; Town of Mt. Vernon v. Patton, 94 ... Ill. 65; Brodie v. Watkins, 33 Ark. 545, 34 Am. Rep ... ...
-
Wilkinson v. Tilden
...attorney to recover payment for the whole services rendered by both himself and his successor. Fenno v. English, 22 Ark. 171; Allcorn v. Butler, 9 Tex. 56. If client is dissatisfied with the substitution, it is his duty to tender compensation for the services rendered, and to rescind the co......
-
Hill v. Cunningham
...himself or by other competent persons, could not be deprived of his right to the fee because his client saw fit to compromise the suit. 9 Tex. 56. Where the attorney contracts with the client for a contingent fee to depend upon the result of the suit, if the client compromises the suit with......