Jones v. Jones

• Decision Date: 28 March 1913
• Citation: 72 Wash. 517,130 P. 1125
• Parties: JONES v. JONES.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

130 P. 1125

72 Wash. 517

JONES v. JONES.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 28, 1913

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; John F. Main Judge.

Action by Harry A. Jones against Clara B. Jones. From an order fixing the fees of George Olson and another as attorneys for defendant, the attorneys appeal. Reversed, with directions.

Geo. Olson and Milo A. Root, both of Seattle, pro se.

Donworth & Todd, of Seattle, for respondent.

GOSE J.

This is an appeal from an order of the superior court of King county fixing the amount of the attorney's fees of the appellants George Olson and Milo A. Root for services rendered to the respondent Clara B. Jones in a divorce action between her husband and herself. The order was entered in the main action in pursuance of a stipulation filed therein. The stipulation, omitting title, is as follows: 'It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the above-named defendant, Clara B. Jones, and her attorneys, George Olson and Milo A. Root, that the amount of compensation due said attorneys to this date may be fixed by the judge of the above-entitled court. Whereupon said attorneys are to turn over to said defendant any papers that they may have in their possession, and withdraw their appearance as attorneys for said defendant in the cause. Clara B. Jones, defendant. Geo Olson, Milo A. Root, Attorneys for Defendant.' The attorneys, Olson and Root, have appealed.

The respondent has renewed her motion to dismiss the appeal upon the grounds (1) that the appellants were not parties to the action and hence have no right of appeal; and (2) that under the stipulation the judge of the superior court acted only as an arbitrator, and that his decision is final. The motion was heretofore submitted and denied without an opinion.

The stipulation was made for the purpose of freeing certain papers which the respondent had placed in the hands of the appellants in the progress of her suit from the attorney's lien, and fixing their compensation in order that she might substitute other counsel under the provisions of the Code (Rem. & Bal. §§ 133-138). It is quite clear from the stipulation that the question of compensation was submitted to the court as a court, and not as an arbitrator. The appellants' right to appeal from the order fixing their compensation is covered by the Code (Rem. & Bal. § 1716, subds. 1, 6). Tatum v. Geist, 40 Wash. 575, 82 P. 902, Slater v. Stevens County Bank, 12 Wash. 488 41 P. 168, and McMillan v. Northport S. & F. Co., 49 Wash. 76, 94 P. 761. Hillman v. Hillman,

42 Wash. 595, 85 P. 61, 114 Am. St. Rep. 135. The motion is denied.

Upon the merits the contention is threefold: (1) That Judge Root was not employed by the respondent; (2) that Olson had no authority to associate him in the case; and (3) that the compensation allowed by the court is adequate for the services rendered. The first two contentions are without merit. The record shows that the respondent knew that Judge Root was actively engaged in the case in her behalf. She therefore ratified his employment made by his associate, even if she had not theretofore directed it.

Passing to the third contention, it appears conclusively that the respondent and her solicitors at Vancouver, B. C., represented to the appellants that the plaintiff husband was worth above $1,000,000. The respondent represented to them that she had been overreached in a settlement between her husband and herself at Vancouver, B C., wherein he had retained property worth $1,000,000 or more, while she had gotten about $125,000, and that she had good cause for divorce, and that he had no cause for divorce. Acting upon these representations, the appellants examined a great many papers submitted to them by the respondent, and had a number or lengthy conferences with her about the divorce and the property. They also prepared and filed an answer and...