Murphy v. Riggs

• Citation: 213 N.W. 110,238 Mich. 151
• Decision Date: 01 April 1927
• Docket Number: No. 46.,46.
• Parties: MURPHY et al. v. RIGGS.
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan

238 Mich. 151

213 N.W. 110

MURPHY et al.

v.RIGGS.

No. 46.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

April 1, 1927.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County, in Chancery; Guy A. Miller, Judge.

Suit by Charles R. Murphy and others against Frank J. Riggs. Decree dismissing plaintiffs' bill, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Argued before the Entire Bench.Garner & MacDonald, of Highland Park (George E. Nichols, of Ionia, of counsel), for appellants.

Ben W. Johnson, of Toledo, Ohio (Martin J. Cavanaugh, of Ann Arbor, and Henry C. Bogle, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellee.

WIEST, J.

Plaintiffs appealed from a decree dismissing their bill of complaint for want of averments showing equity should interpose and exert its injunctive power. They stand upon their bill and insist it demands answer and triable issues. We must accept the allegatios in the bill as true, if well pleaded, and may not turn to the answer of defendant or the affidavits in support of the special motion to dismiss, so far as they raise issues of fact. Defendant is an attorney at law, and for a time was so retained and employed by plaintiffs. In November, 1922, the relation was severed by substitution of other attorneys for plaintiffs. Thereafter, the bill charges:

Defendant attempted ‘to gather into his office * * * certain persons (none named) who have been formerly defendants in cases where the said Riggs had represented the plaintiffs as plaintiffs' attorney, but plaintiff is not informed as to whether any of these persons ever actually appeared in the office of the said Riggs, but does allege upon information and belief and therefore charges the fact to be that on or about, to wit, the early part of May, 1926, the said above parties did appear at the said Riggs office, in the Hammond building, in the city of Detroit, Mich.’

Passing the manifest contradiction in this paragraph and the failure to name persons, it does not state any reason for equitable interference. The allegation that persons so invited were ‘formerly defendants in cases where the said Riggs had represented the plaintiffs,’ implies that the litigation had ended. Outside of the question of ethics, involved in the charge of inviting prospective clients to his office (not here involved), defendant was at liberty to serve such persons in his professional capacity in any matters not connected with his former employment by plaintiffs. This paragraph stated nothing calling for an answer.

Paragraphs 7 and 8 allege:

‘(7) Plaintiffs allege that on or about May 1, 1925, the plaintiffs became involved in unfriendly business relations with one Noah A. Rounds, of Detroit, Mich.; and plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore charges the fact to be that on or about July 29, 1925, the said defendant, Riggs, did, after acting as counsel for plaintiffs as aforesaid, and after he had ceased to act as counsel for plaintiffs as aforesaid, meet with the said Rounds and offered to said Rounds, that he, the said Riggs, be employed by him; that the said Riggs was in possession of facts of importance to the said Rounds, and that he acquired said knowledge during his employment on behalf of plaintiffs as aforesaid, and that he would put the said Rounds in possession of such facts, if he, the said Riggs, should be so employed by the said Rounds. Plaintiffs are informed and therefore charge the fact to be that, on and after the said meeting, the said Rounds and Riggs met and talked over matters regarding the plaintiffs, and especially Charles R. Murphy; that the plaintiff Charles R. Murphy did receive a certain telephone call in his office from the said Rounds, stating that he and the said Riggs were going to get hold of certain former defendants in former suits in which the said Riggs had acted as counsel for plaintiffs, or either of them; that the tactics and methods of the said Rounds came to such a state that a certain suit was filed against him by the said Charles R. Murphy to obtain damages for certain libel and slander, in...