Doggett v. Deauville Corporation

• Decision Date: 17 May 1945
• Docket Number: No. 11231.,11231.
• Citation: 148 F.2d 881
• Parties: DOGGETT v. DEAUVILLE CORPORATION et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

148 F.2d 881 (1945)

DOGGETT v.DEAUVILLE CORPORATION et al.

No. 11231.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 17, 1945.

Rehearing Denied May 17, 1945.

Sydney L. Weintraub, of Miami, Fla., and John L. Doggett, of Jacksonville, Fla., for appellant.

L. L. Robinson, Robert C. Lane, and John H. Mercer, all of Miami, Fla., for appellees.

Before SIBLEY, WALLER, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

SIBLEY, Circuit Judge.

The appellantJohn L. Doggett was the attorney of record for Deauville Corporation in bringing a complaint in the District Court against Garden Suburbs Golf and Country Clubs, Inc., and Bernarr MacFadden, verified by its president.About five months later Deauville Corporation by its president filed a petition in the cause for an order substituting another as attorney of record in the place of Doggett, alleging as the reason that Doggett had been employed by the president and his wife (who was secretary of the corporation) in their individual capacities under a written contract, which was exhibited, by which for stated fees he was to take charge of all their legal matters for a year, with agreed additional fees in case of litigation; and especially of a then pending controversy and litigation by Deauville Corporation against Garden Suburbs Golf and Country Club and Bernarr MacFadden, for certain additional fees contingent on success.That litigation was in a court of Florida, and a month later this complaint was filed in the District Court covering the same controversy.The motion alleged that the employment of Doggett had been terminated by his clients and that Doggett had sued them personally for a large amount for attorney's fees, and other named counsel had been employed in this case.Doggett answered the petition by setting forth that he had done a large amount of work about the litigation for Deauville Corporation, and had an amicable settlement under way, when without just cause his services were terminated by his individual clients.He prayed that a substitution of counsel be not ordered unless and until a fair and reasonable compensation be fixed by the court and paid him by his individual clients, naming them.The Deauville Corporation filed a lengthy reply, denying the answer and asserting other misconduct of Doggett.Doggett then pleaded further that he had dismissed his suit against his individual clients, leaving this case as the only one pending for payment of fees.He denied all the misconduct alleged against him, and alleged a personal antipathy which the president had conceived for him to be the cause of his dismissal.

The district judge, after argument, held that although Doggett's contract of employment was with individuals and not with the Deauville Corporation, the complaint, to which the president had sworn had evidently been filed pursuant to the employment, and Doggett had a standing to resist the substitution, and that the court should determine whether the termination of the employment was for good cause.After hearing evidence the court determined that there was no professional misconduct on the part of Doggett but there was such discord between him and his clients, who controlled the Corporation, that there should be a substitution.It was further held that a compensation for services in the federal court could not be practically determined apart from services under the general employment; the contract being entire and indivisible, his compensation ought to be determined in proceedings on the contract; that such fees as Doggett might thus be found entitled to might be asserted in the federal court as a lien on anything recovered there, and that he should be allowed to intervene for that purpose.A few months later another substitution of other counsel was allowed, the order again recognizing Doggett's lien, and stating that it was without prejudice to Doggett's right to litigate in the State courts with his former clients.Almost a year later on a motion for summary judgment it appeared that Deauville Corporation had lost its litigation in the State courts, and that the judgment there was res judicata of the issues in the federal court, and that the case in the federal court should be dismissed; but whether with prejudice or not was held open to await the result of a possible appeal of the State court case.Doggett then insisted that the court had never finally passed on his claim for fees, which he asserted was not affected by the adverse decision in the State court, and he again prayed that his services prior to his dismissal be valued and required to be paid.The court held that the result of the litigation in the State court, now completely final, prevented any recovery in the federal court; that there was nothing before the court to pay Doggett with, that jurisdiction had never been taken of the controversy of Doggett with his individual clients, but that only a lien had been recognized on the recovery in the federal court, if any should be had.Doggett's prayer to reopen his matter was denied, and all proceedings were finally dismissed.Doggett appeals.

There is a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that Doggett is not a party and has no right to appeal.Since...