Myers v. Crockett

• Citation: 14 Tex. 257
• Parties: WILLIAM MYERS v. J. M. CROCKETT.
• Decision Date: 01 January 1855
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

14 Tex. 257

WILLIAM MYERS

v.J. M. CROCKETT.

Supreme Court of Texas.

1855.

Where an attorney is employed for a stipulated fee to prosecute a suit to final judgment, and is afterwards dismissed by his client without any fault on his own part, he is entitled to recover for the services already rendered; and quere whether he would not be entitled to recover the whole fee stipulated to be paid. (Note 37.)

Appeal from Dallas. Action by the appellee against the appellant for one hundred dollars for services as an attorney. There was a statement of facts as follows: The counsel in this case failing to agree to a statement of facts, the following is given by the presiding judge as the facts proved on the trial: that previous to the Fall Term, 1852, defendant employed plaintiff, an attorney at law, to prosecute a suit for him to try the title to 320 acres of land, and agreed to give plaintiff one hundred dollars for his services; that plaintiff gave counsel to the defendant about the matter; filed a caveat in the General Land Office to prevent the issuance of a patent to defendant's adversary; and filed his petition in the District Court, and continued to prosecute said suit until the spring of 1853; that at that time some difficulty occurred between plaintiff and defendant, and defendant then employed N. M. Buford, an attorney at law, to take charge of his case; that Buford dismissed the suit brought by Crockett; erased Crockett's name from the petition; signed it with his own name, and refiled the same petition; that the petition was well drawn, but was dismissed and refiled by Buford to get the benefit of a law passed after the institution of the first suit, which law authorized the institution of suits upon the settlement claims of colonists in Peters's colony.

Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for eighty-nine dollars.

J. M. Crockett, for appellee.

WHEELER, J.

Whether the discharge of the plaintiff by his client entitled him to recover the full compensation contracted to be paid him for his services in the suit, it is not necessary to determine. The jury treated the contract as divisible, by giving a verdict for the plaintiff for a less sum, as the amount to which they conceived him entitled for the services performed, for which the court gave judgment. The plaintiff has not complained; and it is very clear the defendant has no cause to complain of the judgment. There can be no question that the plaintiff was entitled to recover...