Anker v. Chicago Great Western Railroad Co.
| Decision Date | 12 April 1918 |
| Docket Number | 20,801 |
| Citation | 167 N.W. 278,140 Minn. 63 |
| Parties | JAMES L. ANKER v. CHICAGO GREAT WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY; GEORGE C. STILES, INTERVENER |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Hennepin county. George C. Stiles attorney of record for plaintiff, obtained an order requiring defendant to show cause why his motion to vacate the dismissal of the action and permitting him to recover from defendant the sum of $2,120, as compensation for his services in the action, and $100 for cash advances and disbursements paid by him, should not be granted. The motion was heard by Fish, J., and he was made a party to the action and permitted to intervene and to serve his complaint in intervention within 10 days. Defendant served its answer and the matter was tried before Steele, J., who at the close of the testimony denied intervener's motion for a directed verdict of $2,120, discharged the jury, made findings, and ordered judgment in favor of intervener for the amount demanded. Defendant's motion to amend the findings and for judgment in favor of defendant notwithstanding the decision, was denied. From the judgment entered pursuant to the order for judgment, defendant appealed. Reversed.
Appeal and error -- review on appeal from judgment after trial without jury.
1. On appeal from a judgment in an action decided by the trial court without a jury, this court will consider whether the evidence sustains the findings of fact, though no motion for a new trial was made. It will also review rulings made on the trial if properly excepted to and assigned as error.
Attorney and client -- evidence of solicitation -- attorney's lien.
2. Evidence considered and held not to sustain a finding that a layman, acting as agent of intervener, a lawyer, did not solicit plaintiff to employ intervener as his attorney in a personal injury action. If said case was so solicited, under the facts here intervener is not entitled to an attorney's lien for his compensation, plaintiff in the case having settled with defendant for his injuries.
Briggs Thygeson & Everall, for appellant.
D. C. Edwards, for respondent.
Intervener was the attorney for plaintiff in this action to recover for personal injuries. After the case was at issue, plaintiff settled with defendant, receiving $4,000. The settlement was made without the knowledge of intervener, and without compensating him for his services. On petition of intervener the case was reinstated and he was permitted to intervene for the purpose of having his right to an attorney's lien and the amount thereof determined. Defendant answered the complaint in intervention, setting up that the contract between intervener and plaintiff was champertous, that the case was solicited for intervener by an agent who was a layman, and other defenses. The trial was to a jury. At the close of the evidence intervener moved for a directed verdict. The court was of the opinion that no question of fact was involved; dismissed the jury and directed findings for the intervener. These findings as afterwards signed contained the general finding that the allegations of defendant's answer were not true. Defendant thereafter made a motion to amend the findings of fact, in accord with its contentions on the defenses made, to amend the conclusions of law, and to order judgment in favor of the defendant. There was no motion for a new trial. The motion as made was in all things denied, and judgment entered on the decision. From this judgment defendant appeals to this court.
Counsel for the appellant argued with much force that the evidence was conclusive that the contract between plaintiff and intervener was procured through solicitation by A. A. Roe, a layman employed by intervener, and that the trial court should have so found as a fact, and denied intervener a lien. It is argued that in any event the findings of the trial court on this question are not sustained by the evidence, and that this court should at least grant a new trial on this account, and also because of errors in the rulings on the trial.
The case having been decided by the court, without a jury, this court will consider the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings on appeal from the judgment, though no motion for a new trial was made. 2 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. § 7073, and cases cited. So also it may review rulings on the trial shown by the settled case to have been excepted to, and assigned here as error.
We are unable to hold that the evidence that plaintiff's case was solicited for intervener by Roe was conclusive, but we do hold that the finding of the court that it was not so solicited is so against the weight of the evidence that it should not stand.
Plaintiff testified positively that Roe called on him while he was in the hospital at Des Moines, Iowa, and on the third visit succeeded in inducing him to give his case to intervener. A contingent fee contract was executed at that time, signed by plaintiff, and by "George C. Stiles, by A. A. Roe." Roe is admittedly...
To continue reading
Request your trial