Griffin v. Hidalgo County, 11454.

• Decision Date: 03 January 1945
• Docket Number: No. 11454.,11454.
• Parties: GRIFFIN et al. v. HIDALGO COUNTY et al.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 232

185 S.W.2d 232

GRIFFIN et al. v. HIDALGO COUNTY et al.

No. 11454.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

January 3, 1945.

Rehearing Denied January 31, 1945.

Appeal from 93rd District Court, Hidalgo County; Jas. S. Graham, Judge.

Suit by Gordon Griffin and B. D. Kimbrough against Hidalgo county to recover a contingent fee under written contract of employment, wherein R. D. Cox, Jr., intervened and asserted a claim to an undivided one-third interest in such contingent fee. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs for $5,540.17 with interest from January 1, 1935, at 6% per annum, and for intervener in the sum of $6,134.31, with like interest, plaintiffs and defendant appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

W. J. Rutledge, Jr., of Dallas, and Davenport & Ransome, of Brownsville, for appellants.

E. A. McDaniel, of McAllen, Strickland, Ewers & Wilkens, of Mission, and S. R. Greer and Greer & Cox, all of McAllen, for appellee.

MURRAY, Justice.

This suit was instituted by Gordon Griffin and B. D. Kimbrough, practicing attorneys, against Hidalgo County, to recover a contingent fee in the sum of more than $175,000, alleged to be due under the terms of a written contract of employment entered into on March 17, 1931, between the Commissioners' Court of Hidalgo County and themselves. R. D. Cox, Jr., another practicing attorney, intervened asserting a claim to an undivided one-third interest in said alleged contingent fee.

The trial was to the court without the intervention of a jury and resulted in judgment in favor of Griffin and Kimbrough in the sum of $5,540.17, with interest from January 1, 1935, at 6% per annum, and for intervener, Cox, in the sum of $6,134.31, with interest from said date at said rate.

From this judgment Griffin and Kimbrough and Hidalgo County have both appealed.

The trial judge was requested to and did make and file findings of fact which are not here challenged in any way and are therefore conclusive and binding upon this Court.

Appellants' first point is as follows: "Griffin and Kimbrough were entitled, under the facts found, or which are undisputed, to a contingent fee measured by five per cent of the saving effected as a result of the agreed judgment in the Farson suit."

The evidence shows that on March 17, 1931 the Commissioners' Court of Hidalgo County entered into a written contract with Griffin and Kimbrough, as lawyers, to represent it in certain legal matters. They were to be paid a fixed fee of $15,000 per year, together with a contingent fee of 5% of all money recovered by them for the county or saved by them to the county in certain specified matters. Among these stated matters was the cause of John Farson et al. v. Hidalgo County et al., numbered 700 at Law in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Brownsville Division. Final judgment was finally entered in that case, which covered a refunding agreement concerning much of the indebtedness of Hidalgo County, including bonded and other indebtedness. It was shown that five per cent of the saving shown by this agreement and judgment would probably amount to $175,000.

With reference to Griffin and Kimbrough's right to claim this five per cent the trial judge found as follows:

"(7th) Soon after the making of the contract with the County referred to in finding `(1)', or possibly even before the making of the contract, the exact date not being reflected, interest began to be manifested in connection with the working out of a plan for generally refunding the indebtedness of Hidalgo County, and various citizens of Hidalgo County and various holders of the County evidences of indebtedness interested themselves in such matters, and various and sundry meetings and conferences were held between the interested parties or their representatives, such interest becoming particularly active during 1932.

"(8th) Various Committees and Boards, during this period, were appointed and acted, both for the holders of the indebtedness and for the citizens of Hidalgo County and the Commissioners Court and Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 16, being a copy of the action of the Commissioners' Court on June 3rd, 1932 (here expressly referred to for the full contents of the Court's order and action), reflects at least in part the activities then going on with reference to such general refunding program.

"(9th) The refunding of the County indebtedness, above referred to, was ultimately worked out, and in working out the same the cases listed in the contract with the County, made by Griffin and Kimbrough, were disposed of, — some being settled, some being dismissed, and some tried to a conclusion. However, the exact disposition of each respective case mentioned is not reflected by the evidence.

"(10th) In carrying out the refunding program, the Farson suit in the Federal Court was used as a means, or vehicle, of such refunding, various interventions or other pleadings being filed therein in order to bring in various and sundry indebtedness involved in the refunding program, and various and sundry court orders made and entered with...