Buddress v. Schafer

• Citation: 12 Wash. 310,41 P. 43
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Decision Date: 15 July 1895
• Parties: BUDDRESS v. SCHAFER ET AL.

41 P. 43

12 Wash. 310

BUDDRESS v. SCHAFER ET AL.

Supreme Court of Washington

July 15, 1895

Appeal from superior court, King county; R. Osborn, Judge.

Action by A. W. Buddress against John Schafer and another. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Hoyt C.J., dissenting.

J. C Whitlock and Million & Houser, for appellants.

A. W Buddress, Metcalf & Jurey, and Geo. H. Jones, for respondent.

GORDON J.

This action was brought by respondent to recover the sum of $500 for services as an attorney and counselor at law in "prosecuting and conducting certain causes in the superior court of the state of Washington for the county of Island, in which said causes said defendants (appellants) were plaintiffs and Henry Alexander and Kitty Alexander were respondents." Respondent also claims the sum of $50 by way of expenses, costs, and disbursements necessarily incurred in the prosecution of said suit. In his complaint it is alleged "that said services were reasonably worth the sum of $500, and that said defendants (appellants) promised and agreed to pay what the same were reasonably worth." The answer of the appellants merely denied that the "services were worth the sum of $500, or any sum whatever," and for an affirmative defense set up that the matter had been adjudicated in a trial between the same parties on the same subject-matter. There was a verdict for respondent in the sum of $225, and from judgment entered thereupon, and an order denying a new trial, this appeal has been taken.

Upon the trial appellants offered to show that they had employed other attorneys to prepare the pleadings and try the identical causes referred to in respondent's complaint. The proof was excluded, and this ruling is assigned as error. The apparent object of this testimony was to dispute the amount and extent of plaintiff's services. The respondent contended, and the court below held, that appellants could not, under their answer, deny that the services were rendered by respondent, and that appellants should be confined to the question of the value of the services so rendered; and we think the ruling was correct. It was the right of appellants to have demanded a bill of particulars, or to have required a more definite statement, if the character and extent of the services were indefinitely set forth in the complaint; but under a mere denial of the value of the services they were not entitled to show that the services were not rendered. Van Dyke v. Maguire, 57 N.Y. 429. The court committed no error in allowing respondent to testify as to the amount expended by him for hotel and traveling expenses, nor in limiting the cross-examination of the witnesses Scott and Coleman, nor in the instruction given the jury concerning the effect to be given the testimony upon the subject of the value of professional services. We do not think that the language of the instruction was calculated to mislead the jury, and it is manifest from the verdict that such could not have been its effect.

Coming now to the question...