Louisville v. Reynolds

Citation118 Ind. 170,20 N.E. 711
PartiesLouisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v. Reynolds et al.
Decision Date29 March 1889
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from circuit court, Carroll county; John H. Gould, Judge.

Alfred W. Reynolds and Emory B. Sellers sued the Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Company for services. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.

G. R. Eldridge and G. W. Friedley, for appellant. W. E. Uhl and Reynolds & Sellers, for appellees.

Elliott, C. J.

The basis of the contract under which the appellees rendered professional services for the appellant is the following letter: “Gentlemen: Inclosed please find passes No. 253, A. W. Reynolds, and 254, E. B. Sellers, which are in full compensation for services that your firm may be called upon to render in White county during 1884, except for assisting in trials of cases against the company other than stock cases; for such services, if rendered, you are to receive reasonable attorney's fees in addition to inclosed passes.”

During the years 1884 and 1885, the appellees rendered services in 14 actions brought against the appellant for killing and injuring stock. During the same period they rendered services in 28 actions of a different kind. In 5 of these actions there were trials of issues of fact. In the remaining 23 cases demurrers were filed to the complaint, and the issues of law thus formed were determined by the court adversely to the appellant, and answers were subsequently filed, but the issues of fact thus formed were never tried. The court denied compensation in the 14 “stock cases,” and awarded it for the services rendered in the 28 cases.

It is contended by appellant's counsel that, as the complaint counts upon a verbal contract, the appellees must fail, because the facts stated in the special finding show the contract to be a written one. In support of this position it is asserted that the complaint must proceed upon a definite theory, and that the recovery must be upon that theory. Many cases from our own and other Reports are cited. Among them are the cases of Mescall v. Tully, 91 Ind. 96;Lockwood v. Quackenbush, 83 N. Y. 607;Harris v. Railroad Co., 37 Mo. 307;Batterson v. Railway Co., 13 N. W. Rep. 508;Waldhier v. Railroad Co., 71 Mo. 514.

We have no doubt that counsel state the rule correctly, but the question is, do they give it a just application? That they do err in applying the rule seems clear to us. The letter does not by it terms constitute a complete contract, nor does it profess to do so. If it had stated a complete contract, it could not be varied or controlled by parol evidence. Phillbrook v. Emswiler, 92 Ind. 590;Diven v. Johnson, ante, 428, (March 6, 1889.) But it is not complete, and is on its face merely unilateral. Tomlinson v. Briles, 101 Ind. 538, 1 N. E. Rep. 63; Higham v. Harris, 108 Ind. 246, 8 N. E. Rep. 255.

It does not specify the services which the appellees are to perform, nor does it designate the consideration to be yielded for the services that may be performed. It does provide that the passes given the appellees shall be their compensation for services in the class of cases denominated “stock cases,” but it does not state what other services shall be rendered, and, instead of providing a measure of compensation for other services, it provides that the appellees shall receive “reasonable attorney's fees.” Two important elements are left open to parol agreement,-the services to be performed, and the consideration to be yielded. It clearly implies that what shall be done in other than “stock cases,” and what compensation shall be yielded, are to be ascertained by resorting to parol evidence. It is difficult to conceive a case where the writing more clearly discloses its incompleteness, and points to extrinsic facts. As the contract is not all in writing, it is a parol contract. This doctrine is firmly established. Board v. Shipley, 77 Ind. 553;Pulse v. Miller, 81 Ind. 190;Stagg v. Compton, Id. 171; Board v. Miller, 87 Ind. 257;High v. Board, 92 Ind. 580;Gordon v. Gordon, 96 Ind. 134;Tomlinson v. Briles, supra.

The latter was a competent instrument of evidence, but it neither contains nor purports to contain the entire contract between the parties. The rule that where the contract is incomplete parol evidence is admissible was carried very far, possibly too far, in stagg v. Compton, supra; for in that case the letter of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Scott v. Lafayette Gas Co.
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 15 Diciembre 1908
    ...E. 726;Ewing v. Wilson, 132 Ind. 223, 31 N. E. 64, 19 L. R. A. 767;Frazier v. Myers, 132 Ind. 71, 31 N. E. 536;Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Reynolds, 118 Ind. 170, 20 N. E. 711;Vinton v. Baldwin, 95 Ind. 433;Reissner v. Oxley, 80 Ind. 580;Chicago v. Sheldon, 9 Wall. 50, 19 L. Ed. 594;Steinba......
  • Harding v. Brown, 867
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 19 Mayo 1969
    ...167, 162 N.E.2d 685 and Schneidt v. Schneidt (1919), 69 Ind.App. 666, 122 N.E. 588; but see Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. Reynolds (1889), 118 Ind. 170, 20 N.E. 711; where there is a dismissal of the cause, Meier v. Social Security Administration, supra; where a motion for......
  • Scott v. Lafayette Gas Co.
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 15 Diciembre 1908
    ... ... 726; Ewing v. Wilson (1892), ... 132 Ind. 223, 19 L. R. A. 767, 31 N.E. 64; Frazier ... v. Myer (1892), 132 Ind. 71, 31 N.E. 536; ... Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Reynolds ... (1889), 118 Ind. 170, 20 N.E. 711; Vinton v ... Baldwin (1884), 95 Ind. 433; Reissner v ... Oxley (1881), 80 Ind ... ...
  • Griggs v. Meek
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 17 Noviembre 1927
    ...judgment disposing of the case was a trial. Small v. Ludlow, (N. Y.) 1 Hilt. 307; Pratt v. Lincoln Co., 61 Wis. 62, 20 N.W. 726; Ry. Co. v. Reynolds, 20 N.E. 711. And presentation of a motion for judgment on the pleadings was not a trial, where the motion was denied. Pach v. Gilbert, 9 N.Y.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT