Roberts v. Montgomery

• Decision Date: 28 December 1926
• Docket Number: 19674
• Citation: 154 N.E. 740,115 Ohio St. 502
• Parties: Roberts Et Al., Partners As Howell, Roberts & Duncan, v. Montgomery Et Al.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

154 N.E. 740

115 Ohio St. 502

Roberts Et Al., Partners As Howell, Roberts & Duncan, v. Montgomery Et Al.

No. 19674

Supreme Court of Ohio

December 28, 1926

Attorney and client - Contingent contract to recover damages by suit or settlement - Client effects settlement while attorneys performing their part of contract - Attorneys entitled to percentage of settlement money designated in contract - Compensation not limited to services rendered before contract canceled by client.

1.

When a party who has suffered personal injuries enters into a contract in writing with lawyers for the recovery of damages therefor by suit or settlement, the contract reading as follows: "I hereby employ H., R. & D., as my attorneys at law to bring suit or effect a settlement for damages against I. F. S. Co. for personal injuries (describing same). As their pay said H., R. & D. are to receive 33-1/3 per cent of whatever amount received by me in case of trial or settlement," and then the injured party himself effects a settlement with the wrongdoer, while the lawyers in good faith and without any delay or default on their part are carrying out all their obligations under the contract, the percentage of the settlement money designated as compensation in the contract belongs to the lawyers.

2.

When compensation for professional services to be rendered by lawyers in a personal injury case is wholly contingent upon success, and the contract of employment is terminated by the injured party, without any reasonable or just cause for so doing, and before an opportunity has been given to the other contracting party to carry out his part of the contract, the measure of damages in such case is not limited to the reasonable value of the services rendered by the lawyers employed prior to the cancellation of the contract by the injured party. (Scheinesohn v. Lemonek, 84 Ohio St. 424, 95 N. E., 913, Ann. Cas., 1912C, 737, approved and followed.)

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Messrs Howell, Roberts & Duncan, for plaintiffs in error.

Messrs. Kelley, David & Cottrell, Mr. John H. McNeal, and Messrs. Day & Day, for defendants in error.

KINKADE J.

This is an action to determine the ownership and secure the possession of a certain sum of money, amounting to $5,500, held in trust. The action involves the question of the correct measure of damages resulting from the breach of a contract for professional services to be rendered by lawyers. The controlling facts are not in dispute.

The plaintiffs in error, herein referred to as plaintiffs, are a law partnership practicing in Cleveland. They have had extensive and successful experience in the prosecution of personal injury cases.

The defendants in error Montgomery, husband and wife, residents of Cleveland, each sustained serious personal injuries by a collision between the automobile in which they were riding and a motor trek belonging to the defendant in error, the Industrial Fibre Corporation. The owner of the truck carried indemnity insurance against accidents of this character, issued by the defendant in error United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company.

The Montgomerys, with full knowledge of the standing and successful experience of the plaintiffs, each employed the plaintiffs to recover damages for the injuries so sustained. The contracts of employment were in writing, and were as follows:

"March 28, 1922.

"I hereby employ Howell, Roberts & Duncan as my attorneys at law to bring suit or effect a settlement for damages against Industrial Fibre Silk Co., for personal injuries to back, etc., which occurred on West 98 St. on or about 27th day of Feb. 1922. As their pay said Howell, Roberts & Duncan, are to receive 33-1/3 per cent. of whatever amount received by me In case of trial or settlement."

Immediately after the making of the written contracts, plaintiffs went forward with the preparation of the cases by interviewing witnesses, pre- paring pleadings and doing all other things necessary to protect and promote the interests of the Montgomerys, including an attempt to secure an amicable settlement with the truck owner and the indemnity insurance company. The Montgomerys were at the time fully informed as to all that was being done by the plaintiffs, and approved and concurred therein. The efforts of plaintiffs to compromise on a sum satisfactory to the Montgomerys were unsuccessful, and thereupon the Montgomerys directed the plaintiffs to begin legal proceedings in both cases forthwith. Pursuant to these instructions, plaintiffs sent...