Justice v. Lairy
| Decision Date | 15 February 1898 |
| Docket Number | 2,399 |
| Citation | 49 N.E. 459,19 Ind.App. 272 |
| Parties | JUSTICE v. LAIRY ET AL |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
From the Cass Circuit Court.
Reversed.
A. C Harris and D. C. Justice, for appellant.
S. T McConnell and A. G. Jenkins, for appellees.
Appellant filed an itemized claim for attorney fees in a certain ditch proceeding asking an allowance for services in such proceeding from June 6, 1895, to March 26, 1896, in the sum of $ 180.00. At the same time a claim was filed by Justice & Lairy for fees for services in the same ditch proceeding in the sum of $ 65.00. Appellant and appellee composed the firm of Justice & Lairy. Appellee filed written objections to the allowance of any claim to appellant individually on the ground that the services rendered by appellant were rendered in behalf of Justice & Lairy who were partners in the closing up of said ditch proceedings which were begun by said firm before its dissolution; that appellee was employed by the petitioners in said proceedings who were his clients, and that he did individually a large share of the work in said proceedings during the existence of said firm and whatever services were rendered by said Justice individually were simply and only rendered in completing work which the firm was employed to do and had begun during said partnership, and asked that whatever sum be allowed to Justice & Lairy be to the firm of Justice & Lairy. A motion to strike out the objections was overruled and upon issue joined the court made a special finding of the facts with conclusions of law.
It appears from the special finding that on the 1st day of June, 1893, appellant and appellee entered into a partnership in the practice of law by written articles of partnership, by these articles each partner was to devote his time and talents to the firm and the receipts and expenses were to be apportioned in a prescribed manner, that said partnership continued until the evening of March 30, 1895, when appellee was appointed circuit judge by the Governor to fill an unexpired term, and on April 1, 1895, appellee qualified as such circuit judge and from that time until November 2, 1896, filled said office and discharged the functions thereof; that the petitioner Baldwin employed said firm of Justice & Lairy to prepare the necessary papers and documents and prosecute the proceeding for the construction of the ditch in controversy, which proceeding was instituted on the day of 1894; that whatever work was done in said proceeding during the continuance of said partnership was done by said Lairy for and on behalf of said firm; that after the dissolution of said firm appellant carried on and completed the said ditch proceedings without the assistance of said Lairy, and without any agreement having been entered into between appellant and appellee as to what if any compensation appellant should receive individually for his said services rendered or to be rendered after the dissolution of said firm and without anything having been said between them on the subject, and no new or other agreement was made between the parties to conduct and prosecute said proceeding, and that appellant rendered said services without anything having been said by or to appellee on the subject, and without anything having been said by or to said Baldwin on the subject; that the total amount of attorney fee due and unpaid on account of such services rendered under such employment of the firm of Justice & Lairy is $ 245.00.
The court stated its conclusions of law and order as follows:
Appellant excepted to the conclusions of law, and moved the court to make the findings more specific so as to show that the $ 180.00 embraces only the services rendered by appellant after the dissolution of the partnership and that the court separate the amount of total compensation so as to show that $ 65.00 was earned by the firm while in existence, and the $ 180.00 earned by appellant individually after the firm dissolved. This motion was overruled and exception taken. Appellant then moved for a venire de novo, because the finding did not cover all the issues and was ambiguous, which motion was overruled. Appellant moved for a new trial on the ground that the finding was not sustained by sufficient evidence and that the court failed to find the value of the services rendered by the firm, or the value of the services rendered by appellant after the dissolution, and failed to separate the items constituting the allowance of $ 245.00 so as to show that $ 65.00 was for services rendered by the firm, and $ 180.00 for the individual services of appellant.
The errors assigned are, the conclusions of law on the facts found, and the overruling of the motion for a further finding of the facts, and the motion for a new trial.
The record recites that the claim for $ 65.00 was not contested, and that upon the trial of the claim for $ 180.00 and the objections of appellee, appellant testified that when the partnership was dissolved, on April 1, 1895, by appellee accepting the office of circuit judge, the partnership sign was removed, appellee's furniture taken from the office, and that appellant did no business after that date on partnership account; that the bill for $ 180.00 is for individual services of appellant after the dissolution; that the partnership was never renewed; that when the services were rendered embraced in the bill for $ 180.00, appellee was filling the office of circuit judge; that the services were charged on appellant's individual account book; that each item charged in the bill is for the individual labor of appellant. There was no other or different evidence given concerning the claim for $ 180.00.
The only question to the determined on this appeal is whether appellee has any interest in the $ 180.00.
The partnership was...
To continue reading
Request your trial