Armin v. Loomis

• Decision Date: 12 April 1892
• Citation: 51 N.W. 1097,82 Wis. 86
• Parties: ARMIN v. LOOMIS.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

82 Wis. 86

51 N.W. 1097

ARMIN

v.LOOMIS.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

April 12, 1892.

Appeal from circuit court, Waukesha county; A. SCOTT SLOAN, Judge.

Action by C. E. Armin against E. J. Loomis to recover for professional services as an attorney. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.C. E. Armin, in pro. per., ( E. Merton, of counsel,) for appellant.

T. W. Haight, for respondent.

ORTON, J.

This action is brought by the plaintiff, as an attorney at law, against the defendant for services rendered in the case of White against him in taking an appeal from the justice to the circuit court, in continuing the case, and in an attempted settlement thereof, valued at the sum of $25. The defendant had paid the plaintiff for his services in the case before the justice. The defendant answered-- First, by a general denial; and, secondly, by an allegation that the services of the plaintiff were so negligently and carelessly performed that they were of no value,--and asked judgment in his favor. The circuit court directed the jury to render a verdict in favor of the defendant, and this is an appeal from the judgment. The case of the plaintiff, as stated by himself as a witness, is substantially as follows: The plaintiff took the appeal, noticed the case for trial in the circuit court at the first term, and had the case continued over the term, as requested by the defendant. He then negotiated a settlement of the case with the attorney of White, on the payment by the defendant of $25, and informed the defendant of it; and he assented to it, but neglected to pay the $25. This agreement of settlement with the attorney of White was oral, and void, under the rule. The plaintiff paid no further attention to the case, or its settlement, and did not know whether the defendant had paid the $25 or not; and so the case stood when the time arrived for noticing it for trial at the next second term of the appeal, and he failed to so notice the case for trial at that term, or to have it continued. The consequence was that it was dismissed for not being brought to a hearing before the end of the second term after the filing of the return on the appeal, under section 3766, Rev. St.; and the defendant was compelled to pay the plaintiff, White, $58 on a subsequent settlement of the matter, and he lost the benefit of his appeal, with costs. From these undisputed facts these conclusions naturally follow: (1) That the plaintiff ought to have entered into a written stipulation with the opposing counsel of the settlement. (2) Having failed to do so, he ought to have been...