McFarland v. Dawson
| Decision Date | 20 December 1900 |
| Citation | 29 So. 327,125 Ala. 428,128 Ala. 561 |
| Parties | MCFARLAND v. DAWSON. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from city court of Montgomery; A. D. Sayre, Judge.
Action by J. M. Dawson against Thomas McFarland. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
The plaintiff below was a practicing lawyer, and while in New York, representing the interests of two subcontractors (Newton and Tubman by name) in a deal then on, and that was likely to be consummated in a few days, by which they would be paid for work done on the Tennessee Central Railroad, was requested by the defendant to look after his interest in the samedeal; he being another of the subcontractors on said railroad. It was represented to the plaintiff that the deal would be consummated in a few days, and on this representation he agreed to represent McFarland's interest in that particular deal for 5 per cent. Within a few days this deal fell through, and finding that McFarland was only a subcontractor, and had no lien on the railroad, he informed McFarland of the failure of the deal, and of the necessary legal steps to give him a lien, and was requested by McFarland to take all legal steps necessary to the recovery of his claim. This was denied by the defendant, who claimed that he had a special contract with plaintiff to pay him 5 per cent. on what was collected on his claim against the railroad, and, no collection being made, there was to be no pay. Acting under the above-mentioned instructions, the plaintiff spent three months in New York trying to effect a deal whereby this money would be secured, but in all cases without success. Having found that McFarland had no lien, he took legal steps to fix his lien on the road, and did fix it in the courts of Tennessee, and secure from the president of the railroad a confession of judgment for the amount due McFarland. Going to Tennessee to take the necessary court orders, he found that proceedings had been commenced to put the road in the hands of a receiver. He performed various legal services in this connection in the state courts of Tennessee, and, finding a hostile application for a receiver in the federal court at Nashville, he successfully fought and defeated it. In the meantime, a receiver having been appointed by the state court, he fought an application to issue $50,000 of receiver's certificates; and he was successful in securing an order of court that not more than $5,000 thereof should be used for other purposes than the payment of the contractors on the road, and thereby, and under a contract (which he made and wrote) with the receiver Mr. McFarland got nearly $10,000 in receiver's certificates. In the meantime various deals were taken up with different parties, in all of which he appeared for McFarland, traveling extensively and losing much time from his business, and finally a deal was consummated with certain Washington parties in respect to taking the claims at $70,000. This deal seeming to have been perfected, McFarland asked plaintiff what he would demand for his services, and he told him 8 per cent. of the amount. Only $10,000 was paid. Eight per cent. of that $10,000 was the only pay he ever received from these people, and he had given McFarland credit for that amount. The Washington people failing to carry out their contract, this matter was taken up with various other persons in different places, always with a view of saving these contractors, but never with success, and much time and labor was consumed in looking after it. The contractors being all broken up, he made a contract with the receiver for them to resume work to get the $40,000 in receiver's certificates. Under that contract they did resume work, and got the receiver's certificates. When they quit work they did so under a contract prepared by plaintiff. Plaintiff finally arranged a deal in St. Louis whereby they would get 80 per cent. of their certificates, but he found that some of the contractors had pledged their certificates as security in different places all over the country, and that it was impossible to collect them together and make the deal, and it fell through; but McFarland sold all certificates belonging to him to the parties in St. Louis with whom he came into communication through the plaintiff, but he sold them through another attorney. Plaintiff's services had never been paid for, and the charges he made were shown to be fair and reasonable. Defendant contended that he made a contract with the plaintiff to collect this claim against the railroad, and to pay him 5 per cent. of what he collected, and nothing more, and that he had been paid all...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Halle v. Brooks
... ... payee was made before maturity, and is not an apt authority ... in this case. So of McFarland v. Dawson, 125 Ala ... 428, 29 So. 327, where the action was assumpsit for personal ... services, and defendant sought to show payment under a ... ...
-
Bd. of Highway Com'rs v. City of Bloomington
...knowingly accepted by such other, the law will imply a promise to pay a fair and reasonable compensation for such services. McFarlane v. Dawson, 125 Ala. 428, 29 South. 327. If an attorney renders services without any express agreement as to the amount of compensation to be received, the la......
- Spencer Lumber Co. v. Marsh
-
Alabama Western R. Co. v. Bush
...can a promise to pay plaintiff for the work he did be imputed to defendant by implication of law. Appellee quotes from McFarland v. Dawson, 128 Ala. 561, 29 So. 327: in the absence of an express contract, valuable services are rendered by one person to another, which are knowingly accepted,......