Moore v. Watts
| Decision Date | 24 February 1887 |
| Parties | MOORE v. WATTS AND ANOTHER. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Madison county.
Action on common counts for services rendered.
The appellees, Watts & Son, a partnership in the practice of the law, composed of Thomas H. Watts, Sr., John H. Watts, and Thomas H. Watts, Jr., brought suit against the appellant Samuel H. Moore, for the value of professional services rendered the appellant. The individual names of the members of the plaintiffs' firm were set forth in the summons but the firm name alone was used in the complaint and judgment. The complaint was upon the common counts, and the pleas were non assumpsit and payment.
On the trial the plaintiffs introduced Thomas H. Watts as a witness to prove the contract for, and nature of, the legal services rendered. Thereupon the defendant produced and exhibited to the court the following receipt of the plaintiffs, admitted by the plaintiffs to be genuine:
MONTGOMERY ALA., December 12, 1877.
-And insisted that it was written evidence of the contract between the parties, and objected to the admission of parol evidence to contradict or vary the written contract. The court overruled the objection, and permitted the witness to testify in relation to the contract, and the defendant excepted. The witness then testified that, at the time of giving the receipt, the defendant employed the plaintiffs to prepare and file a brief in the case of Lanier et al. v. Defendant, then pending in the supreme court of Alabama, for a fee of $150; that defendant paid half the fee at the time of the employment of plaintiffs, for which the receipt was given, and paid the other half before the suit was decided; that, after a decision had been rendered in the case, a rehearing was granted, and the defendant employed the plaintiff's anew to attend to the case on the rehearing, which plaintiffs did. The plaintiffs introduced in evidence a letter of the defendant to the plaintiffs, dated July 25, 1882, in which the defendant acknowledged receipt of a copy of the plaintiff's brief in the said Lanier Case, expressed his satisfaction therewith, urged the importance to him (defendant) of a speedy determination of the case, and concluded as follows: "When the case is decided I will send you a fee."
The plaintiffs testified to the nature and amount of the services rendered by them on the application for a rehearing in said case, and introduced as witnesses several attorneys, who testified as to the value of said services.
The defendant, as a witness for himself, testified that, at the time of taking the receipt above set forth, he employed the plaintiffs to attend to said Lanier Case in the supreme court, and not simply to prepare and file a brief in the case, for a fee of $150,-half to be then paid, and the other half when the case was decided; that, after a rehearing was granted, and while plaintiffs were attending to the case on the rehearing, plaintiffs did inform him that they would expect an additional fee, but would leave the amount of it to him, and that he wrote said letter promising to send a fee when the case was decided. The defendant then introduced in evidence the receipt above set forth, and also the following letter from the plaintiffs to the defendant, dated August 15, 1882:
At the request in writing of the plaintiffs, the court gave the following charges, to each of which the defendant separately excepted: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Knabe v. State
...an improper opinion of their duty, and was highly prejudicial to defendants.' To support this argument, the owners rely on Moore v. Watts, 81 Ala. 261, 2 So. 278; O'Neill v. City of Birmingham, 221 Ala. 580, 130 So. 87; State v. Ingalls, 277 Ala. 562, 173 So.2d 104; and State v. Crawford, 2......
-
Tilson v. Graham
...for defendant nor in refusing to grant the motion for a new trial. Conn v. Sellers, 198 Ala. 606, h. n. 1, 73 So. 961; Moore v. Watts, 81 Ala. 261, 2 So. 278; Ortez v. Jewett, 23 Ala. 662; Prince Commercial Bank, 1 Ala. 241, 34 Am. Dec. 773. Finding no error in the record, the judgment is a......
-
Conn v. Sellers
...objection to such defect in the lower court, he waives it, and cannot raise the point for the first time in this court. Moore v. Watts, 81 Ala. 261, 2 So. 278. April 4, 1914, Conn, the plaintiff in this case, as purchaser under the execution in the case of J. Pollock & Co. v. Danzey, moved ......
-
Simmons v. Titche
... ... waives it, and cannot raise the question for the first time ... in this court. Moore v. Watts, 81 Ala. 265, 2 So ... 278; Moore v. Burns, 60 Ala. 270; Lanford v ... Patton, 44 Ala. 584; Reid v. McLeod, 20 Ala ... 576. In this ... ...