Foster, Hall, Barret & Smith v. Haley

• Decision Date: 25 April 1932
• Docket Number: 31244
• Citation: Foster, Hall, Barret & Smith v. Haley, 174 La. 1019, 142 So. 251 (La. 1932)
• Parties: FOSTER, HALL, BARRET & SMITH v. HALEY
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

142 So. 251

174 La. 1019

FOSTER, HALL, BARRET & SMITH v. HALEY

No. 31244

Supreme Court of Louisiana

April 25, 1932

Rehearing Denied May 23, 1932

Appeal from Eleventh Judicial District Court, Parish of Sabine; Hal A. Burgess, Judge.

Suit by Foster, Hall, Barret & Smith against Mrs. A. C. Haley, widow of A. C. Haley, deceased. From the judgment dismissing the suit, plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed.

Foster Hall, Barret & Smith, of Shreveport, for appellants.

G. R Pilcher and Fraser & Carroll, all of Many, for appellee.

BRUNOT, J. ROGERS, J., concurs.

OPINION

BRUNOT, J.

This is a suit against the widow and sole heir of A. C. Haley, deceased. The suit is upon an alleged contract between the plaintiffs and A. C. Haley, entered into prior to Mr. Haley's death. The sums claimed are $ 5,500, for legal services rendered, and $ 75, for advances made by the plaintiffs in the preparation and filing of a suit entitled A. C. Haley v. J. E. Browne et al., on the docket of the Eleventh judicial district court, and, in the alternative, for judgment against the defendant for $ 5,575 upon a quantum meruit. Defendant first filed an exception of vagueness. Plaintiffs amended the petition. An exception of vagueness was filed to the supplemental and amended petition. Plaintiffs further amended their petition, and defendant excepted to the petition and the amendments thereof as not disclosing a right or cause of action. The exceptions of no right or cause of action were submitted on briefs, and were sustained, and the suit was dismissed at the plaintiffs' cost. The appeal is from that judgment.

The petition alleges that, pending the prosecution of the suit entitled A. C. Haley v. J. E. Browne et al., A. C. Haley died intestate, and the defendant, his sole heir, accepted his estate purely, simply, and unconditionally, and was recognized as the owner and sent into full possession thereof. It is further alleged that thereafter the defendant refused to permit herself to be made a party to the said Haley-Browne suit, and in that suit the plaintiffs had incurred expenses amounting to $ 75, itemized as $ 24 advanced court cost and $ 51 for securing a patent to a portion of the land involved in the suit.

The plaintiffs' alternative plea for judgment upon a quantum meruit is first set up in their supplemental and amended petitions.

Plaintiffs contend that complete performance of their services under the contract was prevented by the defendant, and therefore they are entitled to recover the full amount claimed, either upon the contract or a quantum meruit. In support of this contention, they cite C. J. vol. 6, "Attorney and Client," § 292. They contend that an exception of no cause of action should not be sustained when a judgment for any sum may be legally rendered in the case, and, on this point, they cite Davis v. Arkansas Southern Railway Co., 117 La. 320, 41 So. 587. On their alternative plea, they rely on Dowling v. Peyroux, 12 La.App. 551, 126 So. 270; and Taylor v. City of New Orleans, 41 La.Ann. 891, 6 So. 723. The plaintiffs in their second supplemental and amended petition say:

"Petitioners show that they had no agreement with A. C. Haley for any fixed sum or amount for the services rendered by them in the suit of A. C. Haley vs. J. E. Browne, et al., 10,548 on the docket of this Court, except the stipulation contained in Articles XIV and XXIV made over the affidavit of A. C. Haley in the petition filed in said proceedings."

Articles 14 and 24 of the petition filed in the Haley-Browne suit specify the attorney's fee as an item of damage claimed in the plaintiffs' alternative demand in that suit, and they fix the amount of damage for attorney's fees and other legal expenses incident to the clearing of the plaintiff's titles, etc., at $ 5,500. The articles cited admit of but one reasonable interpretation viz.: The total expense in prosecuting the suit to final judgment. A contract for the...