Brooks v. Volunteer Harbor No. 4

• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
• Writing for the Court: CARROLL
• Citation: 123 N.E. 511,233 Mass. 168
• Decision Date: 18 June 1919
• Parties: BROOKS v. VOLUNTEER HARBOR NO. 4, AMERICAN ASS'N OF MASTERS, MATES, AND PILOTS.

233 Mass. 168
123 N.E. 511

BROOKS
v.
VOLUNTEER HARBOR NO. 4, AMERICAN ASS'N OF MASTERS, MATES, AND PILOTS.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

June 18, 1919.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; John D. McLaughlin, Judge.

Action by Gerry L. Brooks against Volunteer Harbor, No. 4, American Association of Masters, Mates, and Pilots. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant excepts. Exceptions overruled.

ATTORNEY AND CLIENT k130-RECOVERY FOR SERVICES BY ATTORNEY OF OTHER STATE.

An attorney, a member of the bar of the state of Maine, but not admitted to practice in Massachusetts, who, at defendant's request, performed legal services for defendant in Massachusetts, employing local counsel to appear in the courts of the state, could recover reasonable compensation for services so rendered, despite Rev. Laws, c. 165, s 45, as amended by St. 1914, c. 432, having informed defendant he was not admitted in the courts of Massachusetts, and that it would be necessary to have local counsel.

Blodgett, Jones, Burnham & Bingham and Charles [233 Mass. 169]L. Favinger, all of Boston, for plaintiff.

Clarence W. Rowley, of Boston, for defendant.

CARROLL, J.

The plaintiff, a member of the bar of the state of Maine but not admitted to practice in the courts of this commonwealth, sued to recover for legal services rendered to the defendant. There was evidence that he had acted, to a limited extent, as attorney of the National Association of Masters, Mates, and Pilots, and while so acting had business relations with the defendant, a local harbor or chapter of the National Association.

[123 N.E. 512]

The plaintiff testified that, at the request of the defendant's secretary, he came to Boston and met some of its officers, who sought his advice respecting a suit brought against the defendant and some of its members, pending in the superior court for the county of Suffolk; that he informed the defendant he was not admitted to practice in the courts of this state and it would be necessary to employ local counsel; and that on being authorized to do so, he secured the services of a Massachusetts firm of attorneys, who appeared of record in the case and conducted the defense. The defendant's answer alleges that the plaintiff was not admitted to practice law in this commonwealth. There was evidence that the plaintiff was regularly employed by the defendant and performed services. The jury found for the plaintiff.

The only question open now on this record is...