McClintock & Lankford v. Frohlich

• Decision Date: 15 April 1905
• Citation: 86 S.W. 1001
• Parties: McCLINTOCK & LANKFORD v. FROHLICH.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

86 S.W. 1001

McCLINTOCK & LANKFORD v. FROHLICH.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

April 15, 1905.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Prairie County; Geo. M. Chapline, Judge.

Action by McClintock & Lankford against Jacob Frohlich. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

McClintock & Lankford sued Frohlich for $100 for professional services which they alleged they had rendered him under employment by him in the spring of 1900. The defendant answered, denying the employment, and saying that, if plaintiffs rendered any services, it was without being employed, and it was without his knowledge or consent. There was a trial of the case; Lankford testifying that he was employed by Frohlich, and Frohlich testifying that he did not employ him, and testifying further that the first he ever heard of a fee being charged or expected was a number of months after the occurrence.

On the trial of the case the court gave the following instructions at the request of plaintiffs:

"(1) If you find from the evidence that the defendant, knowing the plaintiffs to be attorneys at law, sought their advice upon a matter of interest to him, and they rendered services as such attorneys, and gave such advice to the defendant, then plaintiffs are entitled to recover against the defendant; and, in the absence of an express agreement as to the amount to be paid, you should find in such sums as, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances in evidence, would compensate them for their services so performed, and, in determining what is reasonable compensation for such services, you may take into consideration the nature of the services rendered, if any, their value, if any, to the defendant, as well as the amount of labor actually performed, if any, by the plaintiffs.

"(2) The jury is instructed that it was not necessary for the defendant to have entered into an agreement or contract with plaintiffs in regard to a fee, to bind him. It was sufficient if he went to them, or either of them, as any man would ask a lawyer's advice in the regular course of business transactions, and asked either one of them what was best to do in regard to the matter, and received advice from either of them; and, if you find from the evidence that the defendant did ask either one of the plaintiffs for advice in regard to the matter as aforesaid, and received advice from either of them, then you should find for the plaintiffs in such sum as you think would be just and proper.

"(3) The fact that the defendant may have employed other attorneys to represent him in the same or relative transactions which plaintiffs seek to recover for their services cannot constitute a defense to this action.

"(4) If you find from the evidence that the defendant knew plaintiffs were lawyers, and asked their services, and that pursuant to his request they, or either of them, rendered services to the defendant, he could not assume that they were working for nothing merely because he did not tell them, or they did not tell him, what they would charge, but they would be entitled to recover a reasonable compensation for their services."

The court also instructed the jury...