Gammons v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 27 October 1897
• Docket Number: Nos. 10,760 - (212).,s. 10,760 - (212).
• Parties: L. W. GAMMONS v. H. C. JOHNSON.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 488

69 Minn. 488

L. W. GAMMONS v. H. C. JOHNSON.¹

Nos. 10,760 - (212).

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

October 27, 1897.

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Otter Tail county, Baxter, J., sustaining a demurrer to the complaint on the ground that it fails to state a cause of action. Reversed.

F. W. Booth and L. W. Gammons, for appellant.

Mason & Hilton, for respondent.

BUCK, J.

It appears that the plaintiff is, and at the time of making the contract set forth in the complaint was, a duly-licensed and practicing attorney at law; that he performed legal services for the defendant of the reasonable value of $50. The defendant had a claim against a railroad company, which it refused to pay, and thereupon he entered into a contract with plaintiff for its collection by suit or settlement, and agreed not to settle such claim with the railroad company without the consent in writing of the plaintiff, and that, if he did so settle, then he would within ten days thereafter pay plaintiff $50, as full compensation in such case for any services performed by him in the matter. The defendant, in violation of his agreement, did settle this claim with the company; and plaintiff brought this action, setting up the written contract, and also sued upon quantum meruit, he having tried the suit once in the district court. A demurrer was interposed by the defendant, upon the ground that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

The demurrer was sustained by the trial court, citing Huber v. Johnson, 68 Minn. 74, 70 N. W. 806, as authority. But in that case the question of whether the plaintiff could maintain an action upon quantum meruit where there was a similar contract was not argued by counsel or determined by this court. In the decision in that case it was stated that —

"Both sides have treated the action as one on the express contract, and defendant's counsel himself says that the only question is as to the validity of that contract."

If the plaintiff can show a complete cause of action, resting upon quantum merit, without being obliged to prove an illegal act, although such illegal act may incidentally appear, he may recover. Frost v. Plumb, 40 Conn. 111; Woodman v. Hubbard, 25 N. H. 67; Morton v. Gloster, 46 Me. 520; Hall v. Corcoran, 107 Mass. 251. The performance of the services by the plaintiff for the defendant were valuable, and in no manner prohibited by statute or void at common law or as against public policy. In and of themselves, the services or benefits rendered were innocent and proper, and doubtless beneficial to the defendant, for the company settled with the defendant after the plaintiff had once tried the case for him. The agreement to do an illegal act or the doing of one involving a violation of law is a very different thing from the performance of the...