Foulks v. Falls

• Decision Date: 20 November 1883
• Docket Number: 9926
• Citation: 91 Ind. 315
• Parties: Foulks v. Falls
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

91 Ind. 315

Foulks v. Falls

No. 9926

Supreme Court of Indiana

November 20, 1883

From the Knox Circuit Court.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and cause remanded, with instructions to sustain appellant's motion for a new trial.

G. G Reily, W. C. Johnson, W. C. Niblack, W. H. DeWolf and S. N Chambers, for appellant.

O. F Baker, for appellee.

Zollars, J. Niblack, C. J., did not participate in the decision of this cause.

OPINION

Zollars, J.

In March, 1881, the appellee instituted this suit against appellant and two others upon the following written instrument:

"Vincennes, February, 1874.

"Received of Mrs. Diana Falls, one note against Z. P. Estes for eleven hundred dollars, having credits of three hundred and sixty-seven dollars; this for collection.

"H. A. Foulks."

The purpose of the action is to charge the defendants, as attorneys, for a failure to collect the note or due-bill against Estes as agreed upon. The substantial averments of the complaint are, that on the 18th day of February, 1874, the defendants represented themselves to the plaintiff to be attorneys at law, and as partners, engaged in that business and profession; that appellee, on that day, being the owner of a due-bill (called a note in the above written instrument) executed bye Estes, and he being a non-resident of the State and the owner of land in Knox county of the value of $ 2,000, of all of which the defendant knew, she contracted with them in writing for the collection thereof, by due process of law, which contract they executed by the name and style of H. A. Foulks; that contemporaneous with the execution of said contract, appellee directed them to institute a proceeding in attachment, to attach the land of Estes, which they then undertook and promised to do, but negligently and unskilfully delayed and failed so to do; that on the 17th day of March, 1874, Estes conveyed the land to an innocent purchaser, and became wholly insolvent, by means of which negligence and failure to obey the reasonable instructions of appellee she lost her claim, to her damage of $ 2,000. The evidence establishes the following facts, viz.:

Appellant executed the written instrument above set out, and received from appellee a due-bill on Estes. At that time appellant was not engaged in the practice of the law, and was not a lawyer at that time, before nor since.

At that time Estes was the owner of land in Knox county, and on the 17th day of the following month executed a mortgage thereon to an innocent party, for its full, or about its full value, which mortgage was foreclosed in 1875, and the property bought in by the mortgagee.

At, before, and since the time appellant received the due-bill from appellee, the defendants William H. DeWolf and Smiley N. Chambers were, and have been lawyers, practicing that profession as partners. Appellant never was a partner with them, nor engaged with them in making collections, but in one or two instances had received claims and turned them over to DeWolf and Chambers for collection. A short time after appellant received the due-bill, perhaps the next day, he offered it to DeWolf and Chambers for collection, but they, at that time, declined it, because they were not practicing in Illinois, where Estes lived. On the 16th day of March, 1874, hearing that Estes was in Vincennes, DeWolf and Chambers filed a complaint upon the due-bill, and caused summons to issue, but the sheriff failed to find him.

In April following, a settlement was made with Estes, the due-bill was surrendered to him, and he executed a new note to appellee. On the 18th day of June following, upon an affidavit and bond made and executed by appellee, a suit in attachment was instituted in favor of appellee against Estes on the new note. After this the new note was exchanged for a note on one Odell.

In the bringing of the suits, giving of the new note by Estes, and the exchange of it for the Odell note, DeWolf and Chambers represented the appellee, and acted for her, with her knowledge, consent and request.

There is a conflict in the evidence of appellee, and DeWolf and Chambers, in relation to the Odell note; she testifying that her instructions to them were not to accept the note unless secured by mortgage; they disputing the part in relation to the mortgage. That, however, has only a remote bearing upon the case in hearing. So far as it has any bearing, it tends to show that appellee had adopted DeWolf and Chambers as her attorneys instead of appellant, and thereby waived any instructions given to him. After the receipt of the Odell note, appellee endorsed it to DeWolf and Chambers, as collateral security, for a loan of $ 40, and left it with them until 1876, when she went to them and learned that all was lost, as Odell had become insolvent.

Appellee testified that when she gave the due-bill to appellant, he told her that "We, Foulks, DeWolf and Chamers, are partners at law, and will collect it for ten per cent.," but did not tell her that he was a lawyer; that she told him about the Estes land, and that she wanted it attached at once; that she never saw Foulks, or DeWolf, or Chambers, from the time she got the receipt until the bringing of the suit on the 16th day of March, when DeWolf and Chambers sent for her, and never spoke to appellant about it until 1876.

Appellant, in his testimony, denied stating to her that he was engaged in business with DeWolf and Chambers, or that "We, Foulks, DeWolf and Chambers, will attend to its collection."

He stated further, that when appellee brought the due-bill to him she said she did not know any lawyer, and came to him as a friend; that there was an account between her and Estes, and she gave him no further instruction than that she wanted it fixed up, and that he said to her that what was done, would be done by DeWolf and Chambers, as they were his lawyers; that he told her the only way to collect it was by attachment, and she replied that she did not want to take back the old sand hill; that he merely agreed to attend to the matter as a friend and neighbor, and not as a lawyer or collecting agent.

The written instrument above set out was introduced in evidence, and appellee was allowed to give the contents of the Estes due-bill.

Upon this evidence the jury returned a verdict in favor of DeWolf and Chambers, and against appellant. His motion for a new trial was overruled, he excepted, and prosecutes this appeal.

In view of the fact that appellee consented to the taking of the new note, the exchange of it for another, and acquiesced in the acts of DeWolf and Chambers as her attorneys, her statements in relation to appellant are remarkably specific in some particulars, but, there being a conflict between her and appellant, the case must be decided upon the theory that the evidence tends to show that he took the due-bill under the circumstances as detailed by her. Does this make him liable for the loss as charged?

Appellant contends, first, that the written instrument sued upon is simply a receipt, having none of the elements of a contract; and, second, that if it contains any elements of a contract, it but partially expresses the contract, and that, under the averments of the complaint and the testimony of appellee, the contract as made was partially in writing and partially not in writing, and hence all remedy under it was barred after six years, under the authority of the case of Board, etc., v. Shipley, 77 Ind. 553.

We are of the opinion that these contentions can not be maintained. The action is based upon contract and not tort. Staley v. Jameson, 46 Ind. 159 (15 Am. R. 285); Burns v. Barenfield, 84 Ind. 43. While the written instrument sued upon has the elements of a receipt, taken in all its parts, it expresses a contract for the collection of the due-bill. Had it been signed by appellant as an attorney, it would upon its face express an attorney's contract for the collection of the due-bill. Smedes v. Elmendorf, 3 Johns. 185; Bradstreet v. Everson, 72 Pa. 124 (13 Am. R. 665); Sanger v. Dun, 47 Wis. 615; Abbott's Trial Ev. 280, 557.

It is not so signed, however, and the question arises, may parol evidence be heard to ascertain the profession or business or the professed business of appellant at the time he executed the written contract and received the due-bill? It is important to know in what capacity he received the due-bill, whether as a lawyer or otherwise. The liability of a lawyer in such case is measured by a different rule than would be applied to a banker, express company, or farmer.

Under a contract like that sued upon, the lawyer is liable for a failure to institute suit, if by such failure a loss ensues. The same could not be said of the banker, express company or farmer. Shall this contract, then, be enforced as a contract with a lawyer, or as a contract with one of the other classes?

It is the province of the court to declare the meaning of the words of the instrument, and in order that this may be done, it is necessary to know in what capacity appellant contracted, and for this purpose it is competent to have resort to parol testimony.

"The legal effect of the instrument as between the parties thereto is not varied by this proof, but only the accountability of the defendant...