Beals v. Wagener
| Decision Date | 12 December 1891 |
| Citation | 50 N.W. 535,47 Minn. 489 |
| Parties | Katharine McM. Beals, Executrix, v. John Wagener, Jr., Administrator |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Ramsey county, Egan, J., presiding, refusing a new trial after verdict of $ 1,267.10 for plaintiff, who had appealed from the disallowance, by the probate court, of the claim when presented against the estate of defendant's intestate.
Order affirmed.
B. H Schriber, for appellant.
S. J R. McMillan, for respondent.
The question in this case is, was an account stated between the intestate of the plaintiff and the intestate of the defendant established? The plaintiff's intestate was James B Beals, an attorney-at-law, who for a series of years had rendered services as such to John Wagener, the defendant's intestate, and during part of the time the latter had at different times sold coal to Beals. In August 1887, Wagener presented to Beals his account for the coal, and asked him for a statement of his account. Beals made out his account, crediting upon it Wagener for the sum of the account rendered by him, and striking the balance -- $ 1,324.10 -- in Beals's favor, and sent it to Wagener, who received it; and, a short time after, there was an interview between them in relation to it. The evidence is certainly not decisive -- indeed, is rather meagre -- upon the point, but we think it made a case for the jury, and that they might find from it that, although at first Wagener expressed himself that one of the charges of Beals was too much, yet, after the explanations made by the latter, he became satisfied, and assented to the account as stated. Whatever may have been the rule formerly, we see no reason to doubt that now an attorney and his client may state the account of the former. By the statute (Gen. St. 1878, c. 67, § 1) the measure and mode of compensation of an attorney are left unrestricted to the agreement, express or implied, of the parties. Under this provision there is no reason why they may not, after the services are rendered, agree upon what they were worth, and what the client shall pay for them, as fully as they might agree before they were rendered. The court would probably scrutinize such an agreement closely, to see that there was no overreaching, and that the client acted with as full and candid information as the attorney can give him. There is no...
To continue reading
Request your trial