Pierce v. Wagner, 10326.
| Citation | 134 F.2d 958 |
| Decision Date | 31 March 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 10326.,10326. |
| Parties | PIERCE v. WAGNER. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
Reuben G. Lenske, of Portland, Or., for appellant.
Van Dyke & Harris, of Sacramento, Cal., for appellee.
Before GARRECHT, HANEY, and HEALY, Circuit Judges.
Reversal is sought of a judgment dismissing an action brought by appellant to recover damages arising out of breach of contract and negligence in the performance of appellee's duties as an attorney.
The amended complaint alleges that on December 22, 1928, one Walter V. Pierce died testate in California, and that H. A. Pierce, H. P. Pierce, C. C. Pierce, and O. H. Pierce were heirs and devisees of deceased, each being entitled to an undivided one-sixth interest in the estate; that in the early part of 1933, one Lenske, an attorney of Portland, Oregon, was engaged to represent the four heirs for the purpose of hastening distribution of the estate and obtaining the best possible distribution for each of such heirs; that Lenske, in June, 1933, engaged appellee as associate counsel, it being agreed between such attorneys: (a) that appellee would become associated with Lenske in representing the heirs above named until the heirs had obtained their shares; (b) that appellee would render all services which were necessary to properly represent the heirs; (c) that appellee would keep Lenske fully informed of all developments in the estate and to advise him of any important steps which might or should be taken; (d) that appellee would within a reasonable time after he was so engaged as associate counsel, arrive at an understanding with two of the heirs on a specific percentage basis upon which the attorneys were to operate; (e) that he would promptly, efficiently and loyally handle all matters in connection with said estate; and (f) that he would divide equally with Lenske any fees which might be paid to him in connection with such estate.
The amended complaint further alleged that appellee "violated said agreement and was guilty of breaches thereof and was negligent in rendering said services" by: (a) attempting to obtain the right of personal representation of the two heirs to the exclusion of Lenske, and failing to cooperate with Lenske in causing hearings to be set at suitable and advisable times; (b) failing to prepare and present orders to the court in which proceedings concerning said estate were pending and after oral orders were made until a long period expired after said oral orders were made, and by permitting and arranging the appointment of a referee in a partition suit instead of acting as such referee himself; (c) failing to keep Lenske promptly informed of the developments in the administration of the estate; (d) failing to arrive at an understanding with the two heirs regarding the exact percentage basis which Lenske would be entitled to receive; (e) failing to maintain the goodwill of the two heirs mentioned toward Lenske; and (f) failing to remit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sidebotham v. Robison
...— which is what has always been denominated as a "cause of action". Patten v. Dennis, 9 Cir., 1943, 134 F.2d 137, 138; Pierce v. Wagner, 9 Cir., 1943, 134 F.2d 958, 960; Miller v. National City Bank, 2 Cir., 1948, 166 F.2d 723, 727; Lane Bryant, Inc., v. Maternity Lane, Limited, 9 Cir., 194......
-
Gold Seal Co. v. Weeks
...in vindication of a right or in remedying a wrong. Patten v. Dennis, 9 Cir., 134 F.2d 137 (1943), cited with approval in Pierce v. Wagner, 9 Cir., 134 F.2d 958 (1943). In Patten v. Dennis the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, because it was impossible to spell out from variou......
-
Daves v. Hawaiian Dredging Co.
...These elements should be indicated by operative facts, in order that entitlement to relief can be shown by the complaint. Pierce v. Wagner, 9 Cir., 1943, 134 F.2d 958; Eli E. Albert, Inc., v. Dun and Bradstreet, D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1950, 91 F.Supp. 283, at page Thus it seems to be the purpose of R......
-
Profade Apparel, LLC v. Rd. Runner Sports, Inc.
...a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007); see also Pierce v. Wagner, 134 F.2d 958, 959 (9th Cir. 1943); Patten v. Dennis, 134 F.2d 137 (9th Cir. 1943). To survive a motion to dismiss, "a complaint must contain sufficient factua......