Sidoway v. Jones

• Decision Date: 27 January 1912
• Citation: 143 S.W. 893
• Parties: SIDOWAY v. JONES.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

143 S.W. 893

SIDOWAY v. JONES.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

January 27, 1912.

Certiorari to Court of Civil Appeals.

Action by C. B. Sidoway against Ellis F. Jones; W. A. Guild and others intervening. On certiorari by plaintiff to review a judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals in favor of interveners. Affirmed.

W. A. Guild, D. B. Puryear, and J. W. Murrey, for plaintiff. Ed. T. Seay, for defendant.

LANSDEN, J.

On the intervention of W. A. Guild, D. B. Puryear, and J. W. Murray, attorneys.

The plaintiff, Sidoway, brought suit against defendant, Jones, in the circuit court of Sumner county, through the interveners as his attorneys of record, for $10,000 damages for alienating the affections of his wife. Concurrently with the damage suit, the interveners filed a bill in chancery for Sidoway, enjoining the transfer of about $8,000 of defendant's personal property in aid of the suit at law.

Neither case was ever tried, but both cases were compromised by plaintiff and defendant in the following way: Defendant procured his attorney to draw up a written agreement, stating the terms of the compromise of the two cases, which provided, in substance, that defendant was to pay to Sidoway the sum of $75, in consideration of which Sidoway was to dismiss the two suits above referred to, and "to pay and discharge all attorney's fees he has incurred in said suits, and release and hold harmless said E. F. Jones from any and all liens by reason thereof." Sidoway objected to that part of the compromise agreement which required him to pay all attorney's fees and exonerate Jones from the attorney's lien. Jones had previously been advised by his attorney that whatever amount he paid to Sidoway in settlement of the suit could be subjected to the payment of the fees of the attorneys of record for Sidoway. For this reason he agreed with Sidoway, upon the latter's objection to the provision of the agreement exonerating Jones from all attorney's liens, that he would pay in court, for the benefit of Sidoway's attorneys, an additional sum of $75. He says that he had been advised by his counsel that he could be required to pay this amount, whether he agreed to do so or not. He also stated that he knew, at the time he paid $75 to Sidoway in settlement of the case, that Sidoway's attorneys would receive no part of the money. In fact, this knowledge, according to Jones, was the inducing cause of his agreeing to pay into court the further sum of $75 for the benefit of the interveners.

The circuit judge found the facts as above set out, and the testimony of the defendant, Jones, sustains his finding. He directed that the defendant, Jones, pay into court $75 for the benefit of the interveners. The Court of Civil Appeals modified the judgment of the circuit judge, and required the defendant to pay into court the sum of $150 for the benefit of the interveners; Judges Hughes and Hall dissenting.

The question for determination is whether the defendant paid to Sidoway $75 only in compromise of the suits between them, or whether the agreement was to pay $150. Chapter 243, § 1, Acts of 1899, provides as follows:

"Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Tennessee that attorneys of record who begin a suit in a court of record in this state shall have a lien upon the plaintiff's right of action from the date of the...