Forbes v. Chi., R. I. & P. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 09 February 1911
• Citation: 129 N.W. 810,150 Iowa 177
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court
• Parties: FORBES v. CHICAGO, R. I. & P. RY. CO.

150 Iowa 177

129 N.W. 810

FORBES

v.CHICAGO, R. I. & P. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Feb. 9, 1911.

Appeal from District Court, Wapello County; D. M. Anderson, Judge.

This is an appeal from a ruling on a motion filed in the above-entitled case to require plaintiff's attorneys to turn over to the administrator of Isaac Forbes, deceased, certain money collected by them as such attorneys from the defendant railway company. The trial court denied the motion, and the administrator appeals. Affirmed.T. P. Bence, for appellant.

A. W. Enoch, for appellee.

DEEMER, J.

Plaintiff, who is now deceased, was injured through the negligence of the defendant railway company. Messrs. Jaques & Jaques, attorneys at law, sought employment to conduct a suit against the defendant, and as a result entered into a contract to prosecute such action. This contract, so far as material, reads as follows:

“That whereas recently the said Isaac Forbes sustained certain personal injuries by a fall from a train on the C., R. I. & P. Ry., as he claims, from the negligence of said company causing him serious damages, for which he desires suit instituted against said company, and that said suit be instituted by the party of the first part, now it is agreed by the said Jaques & Jaques that they will undertake to institute and prosecute said suit to its end in all the courts through which it may go, using their best care and ability in the prosecution of the same, for which services and agreement said party of the second part agrees to pay to the said party of the first part 40 per cent. part of the amount that may be recovered in said suit, whether by reason of judgment being entered therein or by reason of a compromise thereof. It is distinctly understood that, if there is no recovery by suit or compromise, then said attorneys are to receive nothing for their services. And further that they do not agree or undertake to pay any part of the costs connected with said cause. Dated September, 1905. Attest: Jaques & Jaques. Isaac (his X mark) Forbes. Witness: J. B. Box.”

Pursuant to this agreement, Jaques & Jaques commenced a suit against the company and carried it to a successful termination, not only in the district court, but also on appeal to this court. See 135 Iowa, 679, 113 N. W. 477. Thereafter they collected the judgment obtained, which amounted, with interest, to $2,234.72. Of this amount the attorneys retained 40 per cent. or $893.88, and from the balance of $1,340.84 they deducted the sum of $100, being an amount they claim to have paid one Eddy for looking up testimony, examining witnesses, and getting the case ready for trial. The remainder they turned over to one Swinney, administrator of plaintiff's estate; he (plaintiff) having died after the judgment was obtained. The motion filed in this case was on the part of the administrator to compel the attorneys to turn over to him the $100 retained by them. The attorneys claimed that they were and are entitled to the amount retained as a reasonable expense in the conduct of the suit, that it was necessary because of the condition of their client to secure some one to look up the testimony, and that by virtue of the contract they were authorized to do this, and to deduct the amount from the part of the recovery going to their client. Going to the contract, we find nothing expressly authorizing such an expense unless it be that part referring to costs. This term has a well-defined...