Jones v. Nantahala Marble & Talc Co

• Decision Date: 13 December 1904
• Citation: 137 N.C. 237,49 S.E. 94
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: JONES et al. v. NANTAHALA MARBLE & TALC CO.

49 S.E. 94

137 N.C. 237

JONES et al.

v.NANTAHALA MARBLE & TALC CO.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 13, 1904.

attorney and client—privileged communication—waiver—action for fees— evidence—admissibility.

1. Where an attorney wrote a letter to his client as to the litigation, bearing on the amount that might be recovered against the client, and which, if known to the opposing side, might be harmful to the client, a copy of the letter sent by the attorney to his associate counsel constitutes a privileged communication.

2. Where defendant in an action to recover attorney's fees introduces as a witness an attorney who was associated with the plaintiffs in the litigation in which the claims for fees arose, for the purpose of showing that the plaintiffs' charges are excessive, he thereby waives the privilege of secrecy attaching to a confidential communication between the witness and defendant, a copy of which the witness had sent to the plaintiffs, and hence such communication is admissible to show that the witness entertained a different opinion at the time the communication was made.

Appeal from Superior Court, Buncombe County; Long, Judge.

Action by W. W. Jones and others against the Nantahala Marble & Talc Company.from a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Frank Carter and H. D. Chedester, for appellant.

Merrick & Barnard and Locke Craige, for appellees.

MONTGOMERY, J. The plaintiffs, partners in the practice of the law, brought this action to recover of the defendant certain fees for professional services rendered. The defendant denied that it owed the plaintiffs anything for professional services, averring that it had paid to the plaintiffs a reasonable compensation for the same. The only exception in the appeal arises on a matter of evidence. One of the plaintiffs, in his own behalf, testified as to the value of his services and his contract of employment. The defendant introduced as a witness an attorney who was associated with the plaintiffs as one of the defendant's attorneys in the suit in which the plaintiffs alleged that they earned the fees which are the subject of this action, for the purpose of showing that the fees and charges claimed by the plaintiffs were excessive and exorbitant His testimony as to the amount involved tended to show that the fees were excessive. On his cross-examination the plaintiffs, to show that the witness had on a former occasion expressed himself otherwise than he testified as to the amount involved in the suit in which the plaintiffs' fees were alleged to have been earned, showed him a carbon copy of a...