Hall v. Gunter & Gunter

• Decision Date: 18 June 1908
• Citation: 47 So. 155,157 Ala. 375
• Parties: HALL ET AL. v. GUNTER & GUNTER.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

47 So. 155

157 Ala. 375

HALL ET AL. v. GUNTER & GUNTER.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 18, 1908

Rehearing Denied July 3, 1908.

Appeal from City Court of Montgomery; A. D. Sayre, Judge.

Motion for summary judgment by J. L. Hall and L. B. Farley, as trustees, against Gunter & Gunter for money collected by them as attorneys and deposited in the court to await a determination by the court as to who was entitled thereto. From a judgment overruling the motion, the movers appeal. Affirmed.

The contract made an exhibit to the petition is as follows "This agreement, entered into this the 15th day of July 1902, by and between J. L. Hall and L. B. Farley, trustees parties of the first part, and W. A. Gunter and Gaston Gunter, partners under the name of Gunter & Gunter, parties of the second part, witnesseth: (1) That the parties of the first part have advanced to the parties of the second part the sum of $2,200, which is in part of the fee of $10,000 to be paid to the parties of the second part as hereinafter stipulated. (2) This sum so advanced the parties of the second part are to have until the end of this suit of Hall and Farley, Trustees, v. Alabama Terminal & Improvement Company and Others, now pending in the court of chancery in Montgomery, Alabama, and of any other litigation for the collection of debt in said suit mentioned as due said Hall and Farley, trustees, by the Alabama Terminal & Improvement Company, and are to pay no interest thereon; but the said debt is to be discharged by the fees of the said Gunter &amp Gunter in said litigation as the same are realized. (3) At the end of said suit the said parties of the second part are to have out of the collection, and not otherwise, as fees, the sum of $10,000, including as part of the same the sum so advanced. As collections are made, 10 per cent. thereof shall be appropriated to said fees and credited on the sum so advanced until the same is discharged. As to the amount of said fee above 10 per cent. of the collection said parties of the second part agree in one that the same shall be allowed as a fair and reasonable credit to the said parties of the first part for expenses for counsel fees in collecting said debt in any accounting with the Alabama Terminal & Improvement Company. (4) In the event of the failure of said suit and of the collection of the debt of said parties of the first part to an amount sufficient to pay the said money so advanced by appropriating 10 per cent. thereof as a credit thereon, then any deficiency therein the said parties of the second part are to make good to said parties of the first part, and to secure this engagement and stipulation, Gaston Gunter, one of the parties of the second part, has executed his mortgage of even date herewith on his library and office furniture to the said parties of the first part. (5) In consideration of the foregoing, the parties of the second part agree to devote all necessary time and attention as attorneys to bringing said litigation to a successful termination without other or further fees. It is understood that so much of said fee as exceeds 10 per cent. of collection is payable only out of collections in excess of the debt of Hall and Farley; that is, they are to be paid the full amount of their debt first, and this fee is in the nature of an expense to Hall and Farley in the collection of collaterals." This contract was signed in duplicate by all the parties thereto. The facts necessary to an understanding of the opinion are sufficiently stated therein.

R. S. Stringfellow, J. M. Chilton, and Steiner, Crum & Weil, for appellants.

Gunter & Gunter, pro se.

SIMPSON J.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the court on a motion for summary judgment against the appellees; the money in dispute being deposited in court. The appellees were employed by appellants as attorneys in certain cases, and entered into the written agreement which is copied in the statement of this case. After a litigation which extended over 13 years and after the case had been in the Supreme Court three times, a suggestion was made by the appellees to the attorney for the other parties that they had better make a proposition...