Hubble v. Dunlap

• Decision Date: 12 June 1897
• Citation: 41 S.W. 432,101 Ky. 419
• Parties: HUBBLE et al. v. DUNLAP et al.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

41 S.W. 432

101 Ky. 419

HUBBLE et al. v. DUNLAP et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 12, 1897

Appeal from circuit court, Girrard county.

"To be officially reported."

Action by Hubble & Williams against W. O. Dunlap and others to enforce a lien for an attorney's fee. Petition dismissed on demurrer, and plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.

J. M Rothwell and Wm. Herdon, for appellees.

PAYNTER J.

The court sustained a demurrer to the petition in this case, and from that judgment this appeal is prosecuted. On demurrer, the facts alleged in the petition are admitted to be true. The appellants, Hubble & Williams, were attorneys at law at Lancaster, Ky. They entered into a contract with Dunlap by which they agreed to examine and investigate the various settlements made by Dunlap's various guardians, and to collect, by suit or otherwise, any money or interest that they ascertained to be due him by any or all of his guardians. For the services thus rendered Dunlap agreed to pay them a sum equal to one-half of whatever they might recover, either by judgment or otherwise. Pursuant to that agreement, as attorneys for Dunlap, they instituted an action to recover what was alleged to be due Dunlap by his guardian B. T. Walter. After that suit had been instituted, Dunlap appeared in open court and filed a writing in which it was recited that the claim for credits and charges for board and money lent him was more than his claim by several hundred dollars; that at a certain time he was to pay the guardian $25 in settlement of the suit. This was followed by a release of the lien existing upon certain property, which was created by mortgage which had been given to his guardian by one Hill to secure his indebtedness to the ward, and to enforce the payment of which, in part, was the purpose of the action which was instituted for him by the appellants. It is alleged that, at the time that action was instituted, Dunlap's guardian was indebted to him several hundred dollars; that there was a lien upon certain real estate to secure its payment; that Dunlap would have succeeded in recovering the amount claimed in that action; that they would have been entitled to an amount equal to one-half of it under their contract with Dunlap. It is further alleged that the compromise was made without their knowledge or consent; that the contract of compromise was fraudulently entered into by Dunlap and defendants for the purpose of...