Meunier v. Bernich
Decision Date | 16 November 1936 |
Docket Number | 16490 |
Citation | 170 So. 567 |
Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Parties | MEUNIER v. BERNICH et al. (BALDWIN, Intervener) |
Rehearing denied Dec. 14, 1936.
Sydney J. Parlongue, of New Orleans, for defendants-appellants.
Cuthbert S. Baldwin, of New Orleans, for intervener-appellant.
J. A Woodville, of New Orleans, for appellee.
Christian J. Meunier is a claim adjuster. He conducts his business in the city of New Orleans.
On October 1, 1932, the minor child of Mr. and Mrs. Bernich was killed by a dynamite torch, commonly known as a "fusee," belonging to the New Orleans Terminal Company and used by it as a signal device in the operation of its business. Shortly after the death of the child, the said Meunier, in pursuance of his business as a claim adjuster, called upon Mr. and Mrs. Bernich, soliciting employment as their agent for the purpose of investigating, compromising or settling whatever claim they had against the party responsible for the child's death. Soon after Meunier's solicitation of business, a written contract was entered into between Mr. and Mrs. Bernich and himself whereby Meunier was employed by the Bernichs as their agent and adjuster to investigate, adjust, settle, or compromise their claim.
In order that the nature and terms of Meunier's employment may be readily understood, we quote the entire contract between the parties, which reads as follows:
In accordance with the above contract of employment and pursuant thereto, Meunier, in due course, investigated the accident, and as a result of his search he ascertained that the fusee, which caused the death of the Bernich child, was the property of the New Orleans Terminal Company. Thereupon, on October 11, 1932, he made written claim against the railroad company for damages in the amount of $ 10,000 for the alleged negligent killing of the Bernich child, as follows:
After this letter was received by the railroad, a conference was had between Meunier, as adjuster of Mr. and Mrs. Bernich, and a representative of the railroad company, which resulted in an offer being made by the latter to settle the claim for the nominal sum of $ 150. This offer was refused by both Meunier and Mr. and Mrs. Bernich.
Thereafter, the claim was placed in the hands of Mr. Gordon Boswell (an attorney at law practicing in New Orleans) for prosecution in the courts. Later, the case was withdrawn from Mr. Boswell's hands. It was then turned over to Mr. Maurice B. Gatlin, another practicing attorney located in New Orleans.
Suit was filed by Mr. Gatlin on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Bernich against the New Orleans Terminal Company and judgment was awarded in favor of Mr. and Mrs. Bernich for the sum of $ 7,500. Shortly after the judgment was rendered, Mr. Gatlin, with the approval of Mr. and Mrs. Bernich, compromised the matter for $ 4,000.
Out of the proceeds of the compromise settlement, Mr. and Mrs. Bernich received 50 per cent. thereof after the deduction of minor expenses, Mr. Gatlin received 25 per cent., and Meunier claimed the residue (or 25 per cent.) which amounted to the sum of $ 983.19 by virtue of the above-quoted contract of employment. Mr. and Mrs. Bernich disputed the claim of Meunier, and as a consequence Mr. Gatlin deposited the money in the American Bank & Trust Company to the joint account of Mr. and Mrs. Bernich and Meunier. Later, Meunier attempted to withdraw the fund on deposit with the American Bank & Trust Company, but the bank refused payment because Mr. and Mrs. Bernich would not sign the appropriate check or draft. As a result, Meunier brought this suit against Mr. and Mrs. Bernich for the recovery of that sum, which he claims is due and owing for services rendered by him in accordance with the contract of employment.
The defendants resist liability upon the ground that the contract between the parties is illegal and against the public policy of the state, in that Meunier is practicing law without authority; that he undertook duties, by the contract of employment, which a lawyer only is able to perform; and that the court should not allow him to recover under a contract, by which he professes to be able to pursue the practice of law, in spite of the fact that he does not possess a lawyer's qualifications.
Meunier, on the other hand, insists that he is not practicing law; that he has never attempted or professed to be engaged in that profession; that the business which he pursues, viz., claim adjuster, is not the practice of law and has been specifically approved and recognized by the Legislature of the State in the passage of Act No. 202 of 1932, which defines and regulates legal practice.
The defendants concede that the business in which Meunier is engaged is exempted and excepted from the provisions of Act No. 202 of 1932, but they contend that the exception contained in the statute (upon which Meunier depends as recognition of the legality of the business he conducts) is unconstitutional, upon the ground that the Legislature is without power or right to pass any statute which encroaches upon the inherent power of the judiciary, and that when the Legislature attempted to allow persons, without legal training and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Application of Kaufman
...bar, and buttressing its conclusion on authorities reviewed herein and others. This case has been noted with approval in Meunier v. Bernich, supra, 170 So. at page 574; Petition of Florida State Bar Ass'n, supra; State Bar Ass'n v. Leche, 201 La. 293, 9 So.2d 566; In re Mundy, 202 La. 41, 1......
-
West Virginia State Bar v. Earley
...States. In re Lockwood, 154 U.S. 116, 14 S.Ct. 1082, 38 L.Ed. 929; Bradwell v. Illinois, 16 Wall. 130, 21 L.Ed. 442; Meunier v. Bernich, (La. Court of Appeal), 170 So. 567. In In Re Morse, 98 Vt. 85, 126 A. 550, 36 A.L.R. 527, the court used this language: 'The right to act as an attorney i......
-
Leclerc v. Webb
...109, 115 (La.1979); LSBA v. Connolly, 201 La. 342, 9 So.2d 582 (1942); Ex Parte Steckler, 179 La. 410, 154 So. 41 (1934); Meunier v. Bernich, 170 So. 567 (La.App.1936)). Consequently, the Louisiana Legislature cannot enact laws defining or regulating the practice of law in any aspect withou......
-
McKenzie v. Burris
...Automobile Club of Missouri v. Hoffmeister, 338 S.W.2d 348 (Mo.Ct.App.1960); Hoffmeister v. Tod, 349 S.W.2d 5 (Mo.1961); Meunier v. Bernich, 170 So. 567 (La.Ct.App.1936); State v. Barlow, 131 Neb. 294, 268 N.W. 95 (1936). See also, Clark v. Austin, 340 Mo. 467, 101 S.W.2d 977 (1937); 7 Am.J......