Iteld v. Karp

• Decision Date: 19 March 1952
• Docket Number: No. 2,No. 33976,33976,2
• Parties: ITELD et al. v. KARP
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 378

70 S.E.2d 378

85 Ga.App. 835

ITELD et al. v. KARP.

No. 33976.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 2.

March 19, 1952.

Rehearing Denied April 2, 1952.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Where, as here, the petition alleges that the plaintiff as an attorney at law was employed to represent the defendant on a criminal charge, no fee having been agreed upon in the contract of employment, such an attorney is entitled to recover on quantum meruit for the reasonable value of lawful services rendered the defendant as such attorney; and such a petition is not, therefore, subject to general demurrer.

2. Where such petition in its original form alleged, as services rendered by the attorney to a client, some illegal acts and other acts that were legal and necessary in connection with his employment, the original petition may be amended by striking therefrom the illegal services, the original petition containing enough to amend by.

3. Where such an amendment is allowed and filed, it does not constitute a new cause of action.

Harold Karp sued the defendants, Mrs. Guta Iteld, H. Iteld, and Julius Iteld, the latter being their son, in the City Court of Decatur, alleging a contract of employment for legal services in connection with the arrest of Julius Iteld on a criminal charge, the performance of services, and non-payment, and seeking recovery on a quantum meruit basis. Material portions of the petition are as follows, the underscored wording being that subsequently deleted by amendment:

'3. Petitioner shows that on or about the 24th day of September, 1951, the defendant, Julius Iteld, was arrested * * *. 7. Petitioner shows that the defendants engaged petitioner for the purpose of representing Julius Iteld and agreed to pay petitioner for said services * * *. 9. Petitioner shows that for a period of six days following thereafter petitioner made many calls, many trips, and spent many hours in connection with the investigation * * *. 10. Many of these conferences and trips were made into the late hours of evening and required petitioner to expend much time away from his practice in order to completely and quickly investigate said charges made against the defendant, Julius Iteld, and to prevent his being formally charged with the offense of rape, said charges being presented before the Grand Jury of Fulton County for indictment * * *. 12. Petitioner shows that he diligently thereafter continued to confer and deal with the principals in said case * * * until such time * * * that petitioner was able to influence the said minor's relatives and guardian not to press charges against the young men in question, of whom the defendant, Julius Iteld, was alleged to have been one of her attackers. Petitioner shows that the reasonable value of the services rendered in connection with preventing said Julius Iteld from being formally charged with the offense of rape * * * and a reasonable fee for petitioner's preventing the possibility of the defendant receiving unfavorable publicity as a result of the accusations, whether true or not, and whether later substantiated by evidence or not, is $5,000. 14. Petitioner shows that, as a direct result of his efforts, petitioner has prevented any unfavorable publicity to the defendants herein named; and petitioner has secured the release and discharge of the defendant, Julius Iteld, from the custody of the arresting officers. 15. * * * Such services rendered, at the request and with the consent of the defendants herein named, were reasonable and necessary to accomplish the purposes intended, thereby handling the release and discharge of the defendant from all charges regarding the accusations made by the said fourteen year old minor.'

A general demurrer was filed, and, before hearing, the plaintiff amended by striking the passages italicized and adding allegations that the plaintiff diligently investigated the case, conferred and dealt with the principals therein, has secured the defendant's release from custody; that a reasonable fee for the services rendered in connection with the investigation, which were necessary in order to adequately represent the defendants, is $5,000; and that demand has been made and payment has been refused.

Objections were filed to the amendment, on the grounds that it set forth a new cause of action; that there was not enough in the original petition to amend by; that it failed to set forth a cause of action; that the petition, prior to amendment, set out one entire indivisible illegal consideration for alleged illegal services; that it cannot be amended by attempting to sever the illegal consideration therefrom; and that, since the agency was created for an illegal purpose, no rights accrued thereunder to any of the parties. The demurrers and objections, as well as an oral motion to strike the petition, were overruled, and the exception is to this order.

Stanley P. Meyerson, Hal Lindsay, Atlanta, for plaintiffs in error.

Lewis Cenker, Atl., amicus curiae.

Robert Carpenter, Ferrin Mathews, Atlanta, for defendant in error.

TOWNSEND, Judge (after stating the foregoing facts).

1. It is earnestly contended by able counsel for the plaintiff in error that the general demurrer and objections to the amendment should have been sustained upon the theory that the original petition shows an express contract...