Raimondi v. Bianchi

• Decision Date: 01 November 1926
• Citation: 134 A. 866
• Parties: RAIMONDI v. BIANCHI.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

134 A. 866

RAIMONDI

v. BIANCHI.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

Nov. 1, 1926.

Bill by Amiello Raimondi against Ovidio C. Bianchi. On application for preliminary restraint on return of rule to show cause and on motion to dismiss bill. Injunction granted, and motion denied.

E. A. & W. A. Schilling, of Newark, for complainant.

Donohue & O'Brien, of Newark, for defendant.

BERRY, Vice Chancellor. The defendant obtained a judgment for $2,200 in the Esses common pleas, representing the balance of a $2,500 counsel fee claimed to be due him from the complainant on an express contract, which was denied by the complainant.

The complainant here (the defendant in the action at law) offered to prove at the triai that the services rendered by the defendant were not of the value of the amount claimed, but was not permitted to do so because the complaint was founded on an express agreement.

Execution has been issued on the judgment at law and complainant applies for an injunction restraining further proceedings, under the judgment, because it is claimed that the defendant's charges were unfair and exorbitant and that the agreement, which was the basis of the judgment, was unconscionable and procured by fraudulent concealment of facts from the complainant.

That equity may relieve against a judgment founded upon an unconscionable or fraudulent agreement, or such an agreement arising out of confidential relations, or obtained by undue influence is well settled. Glover v. Hedges, 1 N. J. Eq. 113; Powers v. Butler, 4 N. J. Eq. 465; Tomkins v. Tomkins, 11 N. J. Eq. 512; Dunn v. Dunn, 42 N. J. Eq. 431, 7 A. 842.

Agreements between attorney and client, because of the confidential relation, are always subject to the scrutiny of a court of equity. Brown v. Bulkley, 14 N. J. Eq. 451; Porter v. Bergen, 54 N. J. Eq. 405, 34 A. 1067.

And a suit based upon an agreement for counsel fees or upon a written obligation given therefor by a client to his attorney will be restrained, pending investigation by a court of equity as to its fairness. Kelley v. Schwinghammer, 78 N. J. Eq. 437, 79 A. 260.

Where a client has not had an opportunity in a court of law to test the reasonableness or fairness of his attorney's charges, he will not be precluded here, even after judgment obtained. The reasons for an inquiry of this kind are more potent when that inquiry involves the integrity of an attorney or the fairness of his conduct toward his client.

An attorney at law is a quasi...