Freeling v. Tucker, 5384

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
• Writing for the Court: BUDGE, J.
• Citation: 289 P. 85,49 Idaho 475
• Parties: S. P. FREELING, Respondent, v. MARIAN I. TUCKER, Appellant
• Decision Date: 10 June 1930
• Docket Number: 5384

289 P. 85

49 Idaho 475

S. P. FREELING, Respondent,
v.
MARIAN I. TUCKER, Appellant

No. 5384

Supreme Court of Idaho

June 10, 1930

ATTORNEY AND CLIENT-ADMISSION TO PRACTICE-APPEARANCE OF NONRESIDENT ATTORNEY.

1. Where object of statute requiring license is for public protection, statute will be construed as forbidding conduct of business without license.

2. Legislative power to improve conditions for admission of attorneys does not deprive courts of inherent power to permit attorney from sister state to appear in particular case.

3. Courts usually permit attorneys from sister state to appear in particular case, without obtaining general license.

4. On appeal presumption will be indulged that probate court extended to attorney from sister state right to make appearance in particular case.

5. Attorney from sister state could recover for services rendered in probate court in state, notwithstanding he did not associate himself with resident attorney nor comply with stat- [49 Idaho 476] utes (Laws 1923, chap. 211, sec. 17, as amended by Laws 1925, chap. 49, sec. 6; Laws 1925, chaps. 89, 90; C. S., sec. 6571, as amended by Laws 1929, chap. 63, sec. 3).

APPEAL from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, for Bannock County. Hon. Jay L. Downing, Judge.

Action to recover for professional services. Judgment for plaintiff. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. Costs to respondent. Petition for rehearing denied.

A. S. Dickinson, for Appellant.

Compensation for legal services cannot be recovered by one who has not been admitted to practice before the court or in the jurisdiction where the services were rendered. (3 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, p. 415; Ames v. Gilman, 10 Met. (Mass.) 239; Browne v. Phelps, 211 Mass. 376, 97 N.E. 762; Hittson v. Browne, 3 Colo. 304; Bachman v. O'Reilly, 14 Colo. 433, 24 P. 546; Goldenberg v. Law, 17 N.M. 546, 131 P. 499.)

The plaintiff in this action not having been admitted or paid his license tax in this state, cannot recover for the services set out in his complaint. (Ellis v. Bingham County, 7 Idaho 86 (93) 60 P. 79; Anderson v. Coolin, 27 Idaho 334, 149 P. 286; Ames v. Gilman, supra; Hittson v. Browne, supra; Perkins v. McDuffee, 63 Me. 181.)

It does not save the situation as regards individuals seeking to recover for legal services performed by them, that they have been admitted to practice in a foreign state. If they are unadmitted or unlicensed or have failed to pay the privilege tax, in the jurisdiction where the services are performed, and recovery is sought, relief must be denied. (1923 Sess. Laws, supra; Ames v. Gilman, supra; Perkins v. McDuffee, supra; East St. Louis v. Freels, 17 Ill.App. 339.)

Milton E. Zener and T. C. Coffin, for Respondent.

The mere fact that a person has not been admitted to the practice of law before the court, or in the jurisdiction where the services were rendered does not prevent that person from recovering compensation for legal services. (Tuppela v. Mathison, 291 F. 728; Harland v. Lilienthal, 53 N.Y. 438; Brooks v. Volunteer Harbor No. 4, 233 Mass. 168, 4 A. L. R. 1086, 123 N.E. 511; Miller v. Ballerino, 135 Cal. 566, 67 P. 1046, 68 P. 600.)

The defendant is estopped to plead that her attorney was not duly admitted to the practice of law in a certain court. (Harland v. Lilienthal, supra.)

As a matter of comity between states, the courts of this state have the inherent power to allow attorneys from other states to appear before them regardless of the fact that such attorneys may not...