Ceccato v. Deutschman

• Decision Date: 12 October 1898
• Citation: 47 S.W. 739
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals
• Parties: CECCATO v. DEUTSCHMAN.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>

47 S.W. 739

CECCATO v. DEUTSCHMAN.¹

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

October 12, 1898.

Appeal from district court, Bexar county; Robert B. Green, Judge.

Action by Selig Deutschman against Carlos Ceccato. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Bryan Callaghan and Chas. L. McGill, for appellant. Nat. B. Jones, for appellee.

FLY, J.

This suit was instituted by appellee to recover of appellant the sum of $500, alleged to be due appellee for services rendered the wife of appellant, as her attorney in divorce proceedings instituted by her against her husband. Appellee obtained a verdict and judgment for $150. Appellee is an attorney at law, and, at the instance and request of the wife of appellant, instituted a suit for divorce and alimony against appellant. The suit was instituted in good faith by the wife, on justifiable grounds. An order granting alimony was obtained, but, before the matter of divorce was tried, the husband and wife became reconciled, and, on his promise of future good treatment, she returned to his house. Without knowledge or consent of appellee, the divorce suit was dismissed by appellant and his wife. The wife has no separate property, but the community property was valued at $6,000. There was ample proof to show that the services were worth the amount found by the jury.

The only question presented by the record is as to the liability of the husband for reasonable attorney's fees incurred by the wife in the prosecution of a bona fide suit for divorce, based upon reasonable grounds. In England it is uniformly held that the husband is liable for attorney's fees if the suit is conducted in good faith and on probable cause; and in a recent English case it is said: "Where there is reasonable apprehension of violence, a divorce may be the most effectual protection, and it may be necessary within the rule which authorizes a wife who has left her husband from apprehension of cruelty to pledge his credit for what is necessary to her." And in another English case it was said: "She had a right to appeal to the law for protection, and she must have the means of appealing effectually. She might therefore charge her husband with the expense of the proceeding, as much as for the necessary food and raiment." Nels. Div. & Sep. § 876, and references. The author of the above work, in the cited article, commenting on the English doctrine, says: "It may be considered well-established law that legal services rendered...