Thompson v. Burtis
| Decision Date | 08 November 1902 |
| Docket Number | 12,757 |
| Citation | 65 Kan. 674,70 P. 603 |
| Parties | J. F. THOMPSON v. H. E. BURTIS et al |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided July, 1902.
Error from Allen district court; L. STILLWELL, judge.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
ATTORNEYS -- Fees for Services -- Inconsistent Verdict. In an action to recover for legal services, defendants rested on the issue and defense that there was no employment. Plaintiff, in addition to proof of employment, offered testimony as to the extent and value of the services rendered, which was not contradicted or impeached, and which showed that he was entitled to recover a substantial amount if entitled to recover anything. The jury found in favor of plaintiff, but only awarded him the nominal sum of one dollar. Held, that the verdict involves an inconsistency and is not sustained by the testimony.
Thompson & Thompson, for plaintiff in error.
W. A. Choguill, and Chris Ritter, for defendants in error.
OPINION
This was an action brought by J. F. Thompson to recover from H. E. Burtis and H. M. Burtis the value of legal services rendered for them as to the cancelation and setting aside of an oil or gas lease. The plaintiff alleged and offered proof of a contract of employment, under which the facts and law as to the validity of a lease were examined. A pleading was partially prepared, but, before the same was filed or the action instituted, the defendants employed other counsel and refused compensation to plaintiff. The defendants denied that there was a contract of employment, or that there were any negotiations between the parties from which a contract to pay would be implied. Upon the issue whether or not there was an actual employment the jury found in favor of the plaintiff, but only awarded him the sum of one dollar as compensation for his services under the employment. Of this the plaintiff justly complains.
The contract of employment being established, and no specific compensation having been fixed by the parties, the plaintiff was entitled to recover the reasonable value of the services rendered. The only proof as to the services rendered and the value of the same was that given by, and in behalf of, the plaintiff. He testified as to the character and extent of his services, including the time and study he had given to the questions of fact and law that were involved in the proposed litigation. There was testimony, too, as to the value and importance of the subject of the controversy. The lease sought to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carlgren v. Saindon
...when such issues are separable." (R. S. 60-3004.) This court has frequently directed a retrial upon separable issues only. (Thompson v. Burtis, 65 Kan. 674, 70 P. 603; Leeman v. Page, 79 Kan. 479, 100 P. McCullough v. Hayde, 82 Kan. 734, 109 P. 176; Railroad Co. v. Thisler, 90 Kan. 5, 133 P......
-
Hukle v. Kimble
...the issues determined. A retrial, if necessary, should be of the issues only which have not been determined.' See, also, Thompson v. Burtis, 65 Kan. 674, 70 P. 603; Leeman v. Page, 79 Kan. 479, 100 P. 504; McCullough v. S. J. Hayde Contracting Co., 82 Kan. 734, 109 P. 176; Oregon Railroad &......
-
Osterholm v. Butte Electric Ry. Co.
...91 S.W. 132; Burns v. Merchants, etc., 26 Tex.Civ.App. 223, 63 S.W. 1061; Usher v. Scranton Ry. Co. (C. C.) 132 F. 405; Thompson v. Burtis, 65 Kan. 674, 70 P. 603; Loevenhart v. Lindell Ry. Co., 190 Mo. 342, 88 757; Lane v. United Electric L. & W. Co., 90 Conn. 35, 96 A. 155, L. R. A. 1916C......
-
McCaslin v. The Ellsworth Coal Company
...in the court's instructions, a new trial should be granted. ( A. T. & S. F. Rld. Co. v. Wagner, 33 Kan. 660, 7 P. 204; Thompson v. Burtis, 65 Kan. 674, 70 P. 603; Jackson v. Humboldt, 84 Kan. 445, 113 P. Sundgren v. Stevens, 86 Kan. 154, 119 P. 322. See, also, Discount Co. v. Bank, 101 Kan.......